Economy

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to draw attention to my business interests as recorded in the register.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Haskel on securing this interesting and useful debate—it has been excellent, and my noble friend gave us an outstanding contribution to start it off. My noble friend is well regarded for his business acumen, but in this House has been a dogged investigator and advocate looking at economic and business matters. His interest in the problems of productivity has led him correctly to highlight one of the great challenges: the central importance of management and leadership.

This has been a fascinating debate that has covered many important issues, but let me take up the invitation from the Minister in Tuesday’s debate to think a little more boldly and see whether we have the right mix of political courage and consensus, and where we might be able to tackle some of the larger issues.

Long-standing government policy has been to pursue growth, fiscal consolidation, employment, skills development, competitiveness, innovation and improvements in productivity—the ingredients of economic motherhood and apple pie. But each Government of different shades pursue the same objectives with different emphases and with different consequences. A long-term fault of all Governments has been an unwillingness to address some of the consequences and to understand that if something is working it might need to change to continue working.

It was frequently argued that one reason that France and Germany were able to develop high performance in productivity was the managerial response to inflexible labour markets. Being able to maximise the use of flexible labour markets in the UK led to less attention being paid to effective maximisation of capital, investment and management.

The optimistic explanation for the UK’s productivity puzzle and long-term underperformance was that after the financial crisis high unemployment both in the UK and the eurozone pushed down UK wages and led firms to put on ice investment that would have led to labour productivity growth and to employ more people instead on flexible terms and low wages. Low capital investment with some growth in demand—even if generated by leverage or an asset bubble—would generate rapid employment growth, cutting the unemployment that helped stall productivity.

But we have not seen an investment-led recovery in the way that we would have expected. There are still some fluctuating weaknesses in demand and uneven performance, and all this before you take into account in more recent times the impact of commodity prices, asset bubbles, and Chinese currency changes and economic performance. I suggest that we are far too reliant on the benefits of flexible labour markets.

It was overly optimistic to dream that as unemployment fell and labour shortages became common, the process would stop and the scale of investment would resume, but it has not yet become a reality. Let us be frank: productivity innovations do not take seven-year holidays.

While the Government’s policy document on productivity assembles much of what is already being done, combined with a few useful incremental initiatives, perhaps their most impactful policy to deal with the productivity challenge has been to transfer the costs of low pay from the state to the private sector with the Chancellor’s living wage proposal. This will certainly mean that businesses will have to respond with more creativity and capability than they have shown to date.

I hope that the Government take into real consideration the impact on people of the changes to the welfare arrangements as well as making sure that they develop the right levers to assist small businesses during this change. More aggressive policy on late payments and payment terms should be part of this.

From these Benches, we are very keen to encourage a broader look at what we need to change, addressing stewardship, ownership, governance, leadership and long-termism and ensuring the effective and proper functioning of markets. It was the Bank of England’s chief economist who expressed concern that shareholder power is leading to slower growth and that business investment has been slower than desirable because too high a proportion of profits has been paid out to shareholders rather than being reinvested. In 1970, £10 out of every £100 of profits were typically paid to shareholders through dividends, but today that figure is between £60 and £70, including the current desire for share buy-backs. Too little cash was available for growth investment and firms risked “eating themselves”, he said.

Mr Haldane’s argument is that UK company law needs re-examination. Too much decision-making power is with shareholders, and the evolution of traders in the public markets means that shareholdings are traded so frequently that they have less interest in the long-term health of the companies than in the trade itself.

Remuneration of senior executives is a matter of some concern. In 1998, the average CEO of a FTSE 100 company earned 47 times the pay of their average worker. Now I believe that we are close to 140 times. All too often, there is a limited alignment of interests. Remuneration packages are devoid of any long-term performance measures or claw-back. I find it amazing to be briefed by new managements on how the previous management undertook some short-term jiggery-pokery and then retired on comfortable terms with a generous pension to be paid in the long term when the costs of the damage done in the short term rest with the company and its shareholders and stakeholders. There is a huge misalignment of where the risks lie and where the upside is. But we must not give the board of directors a free pass. There is some startling evidence that suggests that the place where the short-term culture is more pervasive is on the main board of a company rather than among the executive directors or even the shareholders.

We have no issues with high rewards. We are strongly supportive of proper executive rewards for performance, as we have been for entrepreneurs and business owners, but it is important that all these matters deal with performance—and long-term performance. I strongly endorse the view that productivity improvements are present when there are excellent labour relations and where management’s ability to innovate is part of a joint exercise with staff—where companies, like any good functioning institution, have a sense of purpose and common values. One of my great teachers in business used to remind me that once in the 1960s when an American President was visiting NASA, he met one of the cleaning team. “What do you do?”, he asked. They replied, “I’m helping to put a man on the moon”. This notion of common endeavour is found in our best-performing companies. I feel that sometimes our management skills deployed in the public sector could do well to galvanise the public service ethos across the workforce to achieve more.

There is also a growing weight of evidence that not only is there a link between high levels of employee ownership and superior share price performance, but that it is a long-term trend. The UK Employee Ownership Index tracks UK-listed stocks where staff own more than 3% of the company. If one had invested £100 in the EOI when it launched in 2003, it would be worth £749 now. That compares with £277 from the FTSE All-Share Index—a 472% outperformance, and it has been consistent. High employee ownership produces a positive culture.

Perhaps it is time to set auditors free. In 2007, all 180 European banks that needed government rescues had clean audit reports. Auditors are meant to take a sceptical look at management, but all the recent failures, even since that period, also had clean reports. Audit terms should have a maximum period and once appointed it should be clear what is expected. A separate shareholder council should be established to make the recommendation at the annual meeting to make sure that there is genuine shareholder control of auditors. That would be a major advance in corporate governance.

We also need the policy framework that does not just address market failure but ensures the proper functioning of markets; that encourages competition; that is muscular in its approach to anti-competitive practices; that is tough on business misconduct and fraud; that encourages capital investment and positive corporate cultures; that prioritises leadership, management, science and technology; and that fundamentally addresses the terrible inequalities emerging in our society and the need to establish a more inclusive and sustainable capitalism.

We need and must be a place for disruptors, disaggregators and innovators to thrive, but it must be a place where efficiency, progress and new ways of working and satisfying the needs and requirements of today’s citizens and customers can be addressed. But we need to address the social and regulatory challenges at speed and, thus far, democratic systems do not seem able to meet the social and regulatory challenges in such a way that incentivises change, ensures fairness and manages the consequences and risks of innovation. The market alone cannot manage such transformations.

I assure the Minister that there is a strong appetite for more than the polite ripple of applause that greets most of the Government’s measures. In his speech on Tuesday, the Minister said that many of the decisions to make a step change need further boldness, political courage and close monitoring to ensure that the policies announced are implemented. Growth and productivity rely on the ability to make long-term decisions on framework and infrastructure and, whether it be energy policy or the Heathrow decision, we hold ourselves back with the time we take to make these important decisions. There are always consequences for all choices. Sometimes, right and wrong are more about timing and context. Sometimes, government policy decisions are far more political than economic. The Minister’s undoubted record on these matters offers some hope that we may witness a greater willingness to consider the more fundamental and required changes that our country needs, and I hope that in his comments to follow, we will be encouraged by how his influence may be starting to bear fruit.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour and pleasure to follow such an impressive maiden speech. The Minister is known to me and I was very pleased to hear of his appointment and delighted that he has now taken up ministerial office. The Minister earned an undergraduate degree at the University of Sheffield and a PhD from the University of Surrey. He enjoyed a meteoric rise through the investment banking industry, ending at Goldman Sachs. He should also be known for his services to education, for philanthropy and for his very important work on cities.

Many have previously sought to woo the Minister into political service. I had always hoped that the colour of the shirt of the football team he adores so much was always likely to be a sure indication of his devotions. A recent FT article on his appointment described his political views as “opaque”. Well, from where I sit, he has turned into a Blue—not the most comfortable of places for a Manchester United devotee.

The Minister is an engaging speaker, as we witnessed. An online commercial listing to book the Minister to speak—an old listing, I hasten to say—provides his CV and, to help with your search, has a tab you can press if you are interested to find “similar speakers”. I pressed it. He will be pleased to know that among the eight speakers listed were Franz Beckenbauer and Myleene Klass. He may be comforted to know that the list also included Steve Forbes.

The Minister is a great addition to this house and to the Government. His fantastic work on cities and growth is truly to be admired. I wish him well and wish him every success in his post.

It is always a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her place. I look forward to hearing what she will say later. I congratulate her on her extended role in the Government and hope that the courteous and generous way in which we were able to debate fully on areas of disagreement and collaboratively on areas of agreement will continue in this Parliament.

As someone who still pursues an active life in business, I refer noble Lords to my entries in the register of interests. I am looking forward to this debate and to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury.

On behalf of these Benches, I want to provide some context to how we will look at the measures proposed in Queen’s Speech and refer to some matters which we hope the Government will consider in their plans. We are yet to be convinced that the gracious Speech provides a strategy to build the productive and sustainable economy that the country needs. There is, for example, a considerable problem with foreign direct investment and its impact on productivity. Our performance is good and has been for many decades, but in the past five years we have clearly seen foreign direct investment’s contribution to UK performance, measured by GDP per head, become a drag on productivity. The coalition Government ended with a wide deficit still in place in public sector finances and external imbalances. Alone among the major economies, this twin-deficit problem is in double-digit territory. A current account deficit represents a country selling its assets and/or incurring debt to finance spending. This is a reasonable strategy if such investments are likely to create a return and to pay off in the long term, but the UK’s problem is that we have been seen to be on a consumption binge. Household savings are weak; household debt is rising steeply and projected to deteriorate further. We may continue to grow but there will be costs and many potential risks and shocks to the system ahead.

The plain truth is that the UK economy has not recovered because of the successful fiscal austerity programme of the Government—quite the contrary: the UK economy recovered because the last Government abandoned the fiscal consolidation programme three years ago and left it for the next Government to deal with. The way in which they dealt with austerity was not balanced. The Minister is in charge of infrastructure, so we hope that he will succeed in delivering effective and long-term investment and making a significant difference.

The likely occurrence of bumps ahead is indicated not just by frequent reports of uneven confidence in different sectors of the economy but by the proposed national insurance contributions Bill and finance Bill. We will not oppose measures that lock the main rates of tax until 2020, as we oppose additional taxes on working people. We want to see the tax burden shared fairly and soberly, with any scope for tax cuts focused only on middle and lower earners. We will not oppose the measures on the national minimum wage even though it is worth pointing out that they provide no additional benefit, as life, frankly, is just too short.

We support efforts to get people back to work, to achieve full employment and to get the social security bill under control. We will look carefully at the full employment and welfare benefits Bill, especially in light of what may be said in the emergency Budget.

We will not oppose the European Union (Finance) Bill, whose purposes we support, and we will clearly support measures in the Bank of England Bill that help ensure that the Bank is able to fulfil its role of overseeing monetary policy and financial stability. We will await the publication of further details.

It is important that the business and economic dimensions are considered in relation to other Bills in the legislative plan, including especially the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. We will probe this Bill to make sure that the important economic opportunities are fulfilled and made available to all.

I am concerned that the trade unions Bill masks a much darker purpose that the 20-year trends do not support. No one can accuse me of being in the pocket of the unions and I believe that they require more than just reform, but there lurks something nasty and unpleasant in the construction of this Bill and in its lack of natural justice. The Government should expect some energetic engagement on it.

The centrepiece Bill, which is the expression of the Government’s growth agenda, is the enterprise Bill. I am bound to say that it is a little limited in its scope, but there may be a case for doing a few things well. However, we will naturally support measures that take us beyond where we currently are. We will naturally support, too, measures to make life easier for small businesses, including tackling late payments, as indeed we will support measures to improve the business rates system and address issues around pay-offs for public sector workers. I especially look forward to a detailed analysis and scrutiny of the suggested £10 billion of savings which we have heard about. I am pleased that further measures are planned for small businesses and am grateful for being given a second bite at the cherry on late payments, which is a terrible scandal, with £40 billion to £50 billion of cash failing to circulate properly in the economy and drive economic performance. Having personally examined the Australian arrangements in relation to our debates on the previous Bill, which became the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, I look forward to understanding the Government’s argument for the new proposals.

The Queen’s Speech is quite bold in its language but modest in its scope. The country needs to strive constantly for a low-cost and more business-friendly environment; a more skilled labour force; better economic infrastructure; an industrial policy that fosters competitiveness, innovation and entrepreneurship; balanced and long-term investments; to make the case for the positive role of business in creating prosperity, employment and fulfilment; and, most crucially, to address the productivity failure of the past five years, which will undoubtedly be the greatest challenge for the next 10.

We will rigorously scrutinise every Bill that is before this House. We will be constructive and collaborative where we can be but our economy and businesses need more than what is on offer and we will not shirk from suggesting what can be done within the bounds of the conventions. We will not hesitate to challenge the Government when the occasion demands.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his diligent scrutiny of the late payment provisions in the Bill. We covered a wide range of areas during the debates. I hope noble Lords are now certain of the Government’s unwavering commitment to tackle late payment and are satisfied with the way that I have tried to address the concerns raised. We are all united in the belief that suppliers should be fairly compensated when they suffer from late payment. I was persuaded by the noble Lord’s arguments and made a commitment to bring forward amendments to specify in the Bill how we intend to use the reporting power in relation to payment performance and interest owed and paid. These amendments deliver on that commitment.

Amendment 1 inserts a reference to “performance” in the Bill. This amendment makes clear that payment performance is a vital component of the new mandatory reporting requirement and that we are committed to include it in regulations. Greater transparency will bring to the fore poor payment performance. Amendments 2 and 3 make express reference to late payment interest as an example of the type of information that may be included in the new reporting requirement. We are committed to using this power in the Bill to require companies to report on the amount of interest owed or paid because of late payment. This new reporting requirement will bring increased transparency to payment performance.

Together with the wider package of measures we are driving forward—to improve public sector prompt payment and strengthen the Prompt Payment Code—this will encourage a change in corporate behaviour. For far too long, large companies in the UK have used their economic power to make gains at supplier expense. The commitment I have made today will help to ensure that suppliers are fairly compensated. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments and for her unfailing courtesy throughout the passage of the Bill. We share a deep concern that the scope of late payments and poor payment practices is not only unfair, unjust and damaging to small businesses but is a brake on the entire economic potential of our country. With the sum outstanding approaching £60 billion, the Bill is an important step in trying not just to stop it rising any further but to create the ability to reverse that number as strongly and rapidly as we can.

While we favour additional measures—some of which could be considered in secondary legislation—we are grateful to the Government for recognising the need to add strength to their approach by ensuring that the payment report goes beyond intentions and reports on actual performance. In addition, the interest figure in payments highlights existing late payment legislation. These measures have our strong support and we are grateful to the Minister and the Government for listening and for their positive response and detailed scrutiny of our suggestions.

It may be for the convenience of the House for me to thank the Minister for the letter she sent to my noble friend Lord Stevenson and myself helping to tidy up some of the points of contention raised on Report relating to the co-protections when a pub is sold, the role of the adjudicator in these matters, investment by pub companies and the market rent only option, and the consultation on the code itself and on secondary legislation. We are very grateful for what the Minister has written and believe that it resolves almost all of the outstanding issues at this stage. Again, we offer our strong support for that.

We have good reason to be very proud and supportive of small businesses. One has only to look at the annual reports on European SMEs, published by the European Commission, to know how strong we could be with more focused public policy support. Let us hope that this Bill is a strong step in the way forward in dealing with late payments and prompt payments and ensuring that our small businesses take full advantage of the position that they are in. They are, of course, the backbone of our economy.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Mendelsohn]

1: Clause 3, page 4, line 1, after “policies” insert “and performance”

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 2, which is consequential to Amendment 1. I also ask the House to note the register of interests, which lists my interests in small businesses as an owner, worker and occupier and in other connections.

These amendments provide that companies must produce a quarterly statement that lists all the payments to suppliers which have been paid more than 30 days after the suppliers’ agreed payment terms without a formal query having been made. The amendments also confirm that in all those instances interest equalling the Bank of England rate, which is the base rate, plus 8% has been paid to compensate the supplier. Where interest has not yet been paid, it sets out a payment plan to ensure that compensation is promptly paid. The obligation is on the payer to pay. Finally, we are seeking assurances from the relevant auditor that the company is maintaining accurate and honest financial records and statements.

We are pleased that the Government have attempted to address late payments but unconvinced that their current approach is sufficient. The central thrust of government policy is to change the culture of late payments and to believe that that culture change will lead to a significant and speedy change in what has become current business practice. This is achieved principally through the Prompt Payment Code.

We support the measures in the Bill requiring large unlisted companies to publish information about payment performance and practices and to strengthen the Prompt Payment Code, which commits signatories to pay within agreed and clearly defined terms. However, late payment legislation already provides for a maximum 30-day period in which to quibble after receipt. Many shareholders are unsure that the additional legislation will achieve any real change. Small companies fear that they will be pressured into not levelling their potential claims or will be squeezed in other ways. One reason why we suggested in Committee that dates be introduced—and I see that the Government have responded to that in the Prompt Payment Code, which is to be welcomed—is that we already have a statement of dates. We were also encouraged that the Minister, at our urging, wrote to the FTSE 350 companies to suggest that they become members of the Prompt Payment Code. Our concern was, as expressed in the letter, that this was really about reputation, corporate social responsibility and obligations, which are all important in dealing with culture changes, but insufficient. This approach is not enough.

Our approach is to ensure that payments are made by placing the onus on the person paying and not the person chasing; it is not fair for the smaller supplier to be coerced or pressured or even to have to face potential consequences to make sure that they are paid on time. We asked for our alternative approach to be considered in the consultations on the duty to report and enforcement, which we believe were drawn too narrowly. As Henry Ford always said, if he had asked his customers what they wanted, he would have designed a faster horse. We do not need a faster horse; we need to invent something that is relevant, like the motor car, which deals with the problem.

Why do we believe that an alternative approach is essential? There are a number of reasons. The first is the sheer scale of the problem. In 2008, there was £18.6 billion outstanding in late payments; in 2014, according to many reports, the number had grown to £46.1 billion. In Committee, we had a number of estimates in excess of £50 billion and, today, estimates say that we are moving very close to going through the £60 billion mark. That is an extraordinary growth. Since the 2011 EU directive on late payments, which became law in this country in 2013, other reports that we have received suggest that the number has got even higher, even quicker. So these large rises have taken place even during the time when we have said that we are dealing with the problem. I fear that the large problem of late payments will not be addressed by the Prompt Payment Code, which has been co-signed by 1,700 firms. It needs a much more fundamental attack, and we argue that contracts should be void if they specify more than 60 days in the terms.

Although the Prompt Payment Code is of course a good thing, there are considerable limits to it; so the measures to strengthen it are positive. However, policy is too reliant on it. As I said, the code has approximately 1,700 signatories, made up of companies and public authorities. The number of large businesses—defined as those with more than 250 employees—stands at 7,000, so 1,700 signatories sounds like a jolly good number. However, companies employing between 50 and 250 employees add another 32,000, while those employing between 10 and 49 add another 195,000, with micro-businesses increasing the number by more than 5 million. Micro-businesses, which employ fewer than nine people, are included in this code. Out of a universe that is now in excess of 5 million companies, we have 1,700 signatories. I do not believe that this will ever grow sufficiently large to change the culture. Given that the code also includes public authorities, it is very hard to see how it can gain that scale.

Moreover, the stated intention of the code is to ensure that it remains a gold standard. If it is a standard for some to aspire to, that inherently means that others will not meet the standard and will therefore be excluded—and the culture will not inherently be transferred to them. To be perfectly honest, for those companies that see it as a badge of honour, you are dealing with suppliers that may think that the badge of honour is an important consideration, but I suspect that whether they have a serviceable need that a business addresses, or a route to market, is probably far more significant.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his amendments on the important matter of late payment and for the general support that he has given to the Bill’s provisions. I also thank him for his diligence and interest. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, to my noble friend Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, with their business experience, to my noble friend Lord Cope and to my noble friend Lord Stoneham for his perceptive and practical comments about the risk of unintended consequences—gleaned, I think, from his very careful study and attendance every day in Committee.

Before turning to the amendments, I want to reassure the House about the Government’s unwavering commitment to tackling late payment. The measures we are taking forward in the Bill form part of a comprehensive package of measures to bring an end to the UK’s late payment culture. The Government are absolutely clear that large companies should lead by example and pay their small suppliers within 30 days. We need to shake up corporate culture to drive home our message—that it is not fair and not right to pay your suppliers late or use unfair payment terms.

That is why we are taking action in the Bill to require the UK’s larger companies to report on their payment practices, and we have already consulted on the detail of what this might look like. We proposed that companies report quarterly against a comprehensive set of metrics, including the proportion of invoices paid beyond 30, 60, 90 and 120 days and the average time taken overall to pay invoices. Therefore, there is a real incentive to show that you pay promptly and on time, and an opportunity for companies to explain if payment is late. It is a strong brake on bad behaviour, as my noble friend Lady Harding suggested.

This reporting will be rigorously monitored, with a company director required to sign it off, and breaches will be sanctionable by a criminal offence. Importantly, we will require companies to make this information public, so there will also be the power of transparency. The new reporting requirements will mean that poor payment practices are exposed, and it is this transparency that will drive a fundamental change in corporate behaviour. I also highlight that on Monday the Government published a summary of responses to our consultation. While the Government are still considering the evidence received, I am pleased that a clear majority of stakeholders agreed with our overall approach, although there were concerns about some aspects, including our very rigorous reporting requirements.

Last week, my right honourable friend Matthew Hancock MP also announced significant changes to the Prompt Payment Code. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and others have encouraged us to strengthen this, and the code will now promote 30-day payment terms as standard and enforce maximum 60-day terms. The change will be rigorously enforced by the new code compliance board, which will include people from business representative bodies who will investigate challenges made against signatories to the code by their suppliers. The compliance board will remove signatories found to be in breach of the code’s principles and standards. This will shine further light on poor payment practices. The Government are also seeking views on how to provide business representatives bodies with additional legal powers to challenge grossly unfair contractual terms or practices, which will build on existing protections for small businesses.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, highlighted the issue of Lidl. The Government are clear that large companies including Lidl, which is a leading German supermarket chain, should lead by example and pay their small suppliers within 30 days. It is neither fair nor right to use unduly long payment terms. As I said earlier, we are already taking action in the Bill to require such companies to report on their payment practices through very tough requirements, including the detailed metrics that I have already described.

The noble Lord, Lord Lea, talked about the situation in the insurance industry and I will certainly look at the points that he raised. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, gave us a list of companies reported to be squeezing suppliers. This is further evidence, frankly, of the need for change and the action we are taking in this Bill and in the regulations made under it. He mentioned Diageo, which is already being investigated by the Prompt Payment Code administrator. The Government are being tough for small business, and we will take the necessary steps to stamp out poor practices.

I turn to the specific amendments. I recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed and I am pleased to say I have been persuaded by some of the noble Lord’s arguments. I can confirm today that we will table amendments at Third Reading to insert the word “performance” into Clause 3, which was a concern that the noble Lord pressed in Committee to which we have listened. I also commit that we will use this power to require companies to report on the amount of interest owed on late payment because we agree that this will help to exert the necessary pressure on companies to make sure that their suppliers are fairly compensated. We will make express reference in the Bill to interest owed and paid. We will introduce amendments on both these points at Third Reading.

I now turn to the proposal to require companies to prepare a compensation plan on each instance that they fail to pay late payment interest. I am afraid that, on this point, I continue to believe that introducing this measure would lead to unintended and undesirable consequences. For example, businesses could lengthen their payment terms to avoid accidently having to pay out. If they do get caught by the requirement, there could be debates about whether payment plans provided cover for delaying tactics. While we are committed to tackling late payment, we are equally committed to trying to incentivise prompt payment with as little bureaucracy as possible. The discussions that we had with stakeholders indicated support for this view. These discussions reinforced the findings from our 2012 consultation that introducing further penalties would not tackle the problem of late payment. Instead, respondents called for greater transparency on payment practices, which this Bill delivers.

The noble Lord gave us some interesting feedback on the website. He will be glad to hear that BIS has just awarded the Chartered Institute of Credit Management £50,000 to improve that very website, so he is on the money. The improved website will go live later this month and I can only thank him for identifying this issue and sharing it with the House. I shall take it away and ensure that it is addressed urgently.

It is clear that the noble Lord and I are united in our mission to tackle late payment, but we must make sure that any interventions will work to the benefit of the very small businesses that we seek to protect.

I turn to the question of ensuring the report’s accuracy. Our consultation proposed that the reporting frequency be quarterly, as companies’ ability to pay or practices in paying trade creditors can change quickly. Therefore, we are not proposing that companies report in their annual report. Instead, we propose that the report should be signed off by the company’s director, with breaches sanctionable by criminal penalties, using the power in the Bill to mandate reporting. The summary of responses we have published shows broad support for this proposal. Respondents clearly feel that these measures would suffice to ensure the report’s accuracy and I therefore do not agree that we should require further assurances from an auditor.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their significant contribution to the scrutiny of these provisions. We have considered very carefully the proposals set out in the amendment and I hope that, with my commitment to bring back some changes at Third Reading, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

I thank the Minister for her extensive response to these amendments. I shall go through a few issues and then come back to them. In general, I thank the Minister for her very constructive and open approach throughout to these issues and to making improvements to the Bill. We share a great interest in and concern for helping to develop small businesses and doing what we can for them.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I had the great pleasure of talking about her, and our close connection, when she made her maiden speech. She is a remarkable business figure and I will address a number of the issues that she raised. The criticism has been made that we are trying to change culture through legislation. That is not our approach; it is the Government’s. The noble Baroness talked about the limitations of this. I have no doubt there are benefits to it, which I support, but I do not find myself on the same side of the argument as her on that one. We are adding duties and obligations because we have come to the conclusion that that is the way to address the size and scale of the problem. It is certainly true that legislation rarely changes the heart but, as the phrase goes, it can restrain the heartless. There are times when you have to use legislation as a lever to make things happen. I agree that the reporting requirements are an obligation, but they are a necessary one, and I hope that her support for them is heard by many other people in business.

I do not think that the issue of how customers and suppliers contract with each other comes up until the next set of amendments. They are slightly more complex so I will address that issue then. I want to say to the noble Baroness that I have become a bit of a junkie on the website. I am grateful that it is to get a £50,000 refresh, and perhaps even an app. Having looked through the Prompt Payment Code, I noticed that TalkTalk is not a signatory to it. We are talking about changing the culture, but if someone sitting in this House does not yet have a sense of how that culture should change, it is an issue when we come to address business at large. It is my feeling that culture change is insufficient in and of itself.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, talked about being overly prescriptive, and he raised those concerns in Committee. I listened carefully to what he said and I have done my research on it. I felt at the time that the point was insufficient because of the scale of the problem and the way it is growing. When we look at how other countries with far less significant economic problems, or even problems in how to deal with this issue, we can see that they are the ones that have been infinitely more prescriptive. We can look at Ireland, while legislation in Germany passed just last year shows how that country has moved forward. It is only by being more prescriptive that we get clarity and avoid unintended consequences, which are more likely to arise in circumstances where a variety of alternative payment terms or arrangements are allowed to be put in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised similar issues in Committee. Again, I listened carefully to him and I decided to take my cue from the GOV.UK website on the question of how we look at the dates. The website explains when a payment becomes late. It states:

“If you haven’t already agreed when the money will be paid, the law says the payment is late after 30 days for public authorities and business transactions after either: the customer gets the invoice”,

or,

“you deliver the goods or provide the service”.

That is how we reach the point where this can be tested.

I am grateful to the Minister and we are encouraged by some of the changes that have been made. We feel that the areas of performance and being able to identify the interest payments are useful steps. However, I am bound to say that my noble friend Lord Mitchell made a powerful speech, going through yet again those companies that have good records in a variety of areas but allow themselves to do what has become far too natural and far too easy in the context of the UK. We stand out from others because we are not as strong as we should be on dealing with prompt payment and people who get into late payments. The prize is there. We are talking about close to £60 billion, so putting even a small proportion of that sum into the economy will have a huge accelerating impact. We on this side think that being on the side of small businesses means getting more money racing through the economy. The need to increase employment prospects requires us to press the amendments and push to see whether we can get the economy moving by getting these late payments to small businesses sorted out much sooner than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Mendelsohn]

3: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Companies: dealing with suppliers
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) imposing a limit on the number of days after receipt of a supplier’s invoice a company can seek to challenge that invoice,(b) prohibiting the practice of a company seeking to change the payment terms of a supplier company unilaterally, and(c) prohibiting a company from requiring a supplier company to make a payment in order to join that company’s list of suppliers.”

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 4. Our amendments deal with an entirely connected element of late payment and other sorts of payment practices. Amendment 3 addresses concerns about companies exceeding payment agreements, discounting for prompt payment and retrospective discounting. This proposed new clause gives the Secretary of State new regulation-making powers to impose,

“a limit on the number of days after receipt of a supplier’s invoice a company can seek to challenge that invoice”,

and to prohibit companies from,

“seeking to change the payment terms of a supplier company unilaterally”,

or requiring supplier companies to pay to join that company’s list of suppliers or remain on it. Amendment 3 takes forward some fairly straightforward measures on what I would describe as abuses but on which I think there is a fair degree of consensus. Amendment 4 is perhaps slightly more exotic. It makes provision for the Secretary of State to,

“make regulations prohibiting the practice of a company seeking to reverse fixed payments and apply retrospective rebates and charges to a supplier company”.

Companies looking to extend their payment terms still could be on the right side of a prompt payment code if they use a variety of other practices to provide extended payment and credit terms to themselves. They can also add unfair terms using the asymmetry of power and information. Across much of the rest of the Bill the Government’s proposals have done a somewhat reasonable job to start addressing that issue, which afflicts small businesses, but companies can still change terms unfairly or even force unfair terms on weaker companies. “Pay to stay” must be the most egregious such practice but it is certainly not the only one. A weak approach to late payments coupled with no action on unfair practices or terms will mean that small businesses are unlikely to gain much from this Bill, which will seriously affect their cash flow or make their ability to fund and finance themselves not as strong as we really need with our current economy.

I have also witnessed at first hand the inventiveness of large companies to obfuscate and stop meeting their obligations on other payments. I have even had the misfortune with one particularly large supplier of meeting someone called “supplier disputes resolution”; this really means that they are a lawyer from the legal team, there to cause more problems rather than resolve anything.

I must thank the many small businesses and their advisers and representatives who are providing us with information on this. They have told us strongly, chiming with my own experience, of just some of the wariness that they feel is associated with raising the problems of poor practices of other companies, and of the nature of some of the pressures that they are under. These problems could include larger companies withholding payments, imposing fines or even creating retrospective payments or charges.

One has only to talk to small businesses for a short period to understand the iconic nature of the Premier Foods controversy, where it was forcing suppliers to pay to stay on its supplier list, which is perhaps one of the more appalling practices. Others force businesses to pay to go on the supplier list, which distorts competition and tries to use market power against smaller companies. Our measures will ensure that the problems of late payments are not transferred to other practices. The amendments also have the benefit of addressing legitimately some of the terrible and detrimental practices that small businesses suffer from large companies which exceed their agreements and act retrospectively, leading to tremendously bad consequences for other companies.

Withholding payments or arranging debits on control invoices can be caused by disputes or by issues about quality. These should rightly be raised prior to any unilateral fine, debit, discount or withholding of payment, and swiftly resolved between the parties. We agree with the Government that when there are disputes the most important thing is to resolve them as swiftly as possible. These amendments give the Secretary of State new regulation-making powers to address these issues.

There are cases where businesses retrospectively, at the end of the year, impose cuts to meet the previously agreed supplier prices to meet their margins, with no regard for the established contract. This is levelled against many plcs. Recently, we saw Debenhams unilaterally conducting a 2.5% discount on supplier prices as a last-minute attempt to boost its failing profit margins. Sending retrospective debit notes is on the basis of investments made to provide benefits to suppliers—very supposed benefits indeed. This is not to say that they do not make for a plausible argument; but the manner in which these can be applied and that they rarely have any performance-reporting, a direct correlation to those benefits or even requirement of proof that they were spent on this show the ways in which companies also impose egregious practices.

The contract terms, conditions and price negotiations are really up to the parties. Commercial terms, such as marketing discounts, early-payment discounts, stock write-downs, rebates and charging for central distribution costs appear to affect more the long-term performance of the companies operating them, and distort their price negotiations. But those are within the gift of companies if they decide to use those sorts of practices and the matter is clearly up to them. These terms can be entered into by parties, but it should not be possible to impose them retrospectively or coercively by means of threats or market power.

I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments. In Committee, the Government understood some of the concerns and they have not been deaf to the many stories that they have heard about the application of practices of this sort and the problems they create. They also seemed to acknowledge that their initial responses were not sufficient. In Committee, their view was that in practice requests for changes of payment terms are not imposed unilaterally and that they are made with the agreement of both parties, even if the smaller party may feel that it has no option other than to agree. We patently know that that is not the case. We have seen many examples of where changes have been made unilaterally.

The late payment directive is explicit that unfair contractual terms and practices are not acceptable. I spent some time looking at the late payment directive, which I was assured had significant UK participation in its drafting. I have to confess that it is rather good. It talks about the way in which these sorts of changes are not acceptable and should not be acceptable and says that, even in circumstances when they are imposed on the smaller party, they should not be.

The Government argue that concern about doing something about “pay to stay” may have the unintended consequence of stopping supplier lists, which may be a good thing. We agree with them. This is not meant to stop supplier lists. It is important for companies to be able to manage supplier lists. The problem is the terms on which people join those lists. We suggest amendments which give the Secretary of State the ability to make those changes. We are not being prescriptive. We are broad in defining what they can address. It remains for future consultations, regulations and other things to implement them. What we are trying to get at is clear. It is also clear that we are doing something, which is not too prescriptive. I know that some noble Lords have concerns about that. In many ways we have taken, perhaps for the first time, the argument that the Government presented in Committee that “may” cannot become “must”—so rather than “must” we have said “may”. It is important for the Government to understand that these are some of the issues they should address. Given the scale and size of the problem, we can identify late payments, as opposed to poor and extended payment terms, as somewhere where we need action to help small businesses. I beg to move.

[Lord Mitchell]

My Lords, “pay to stay” and retrospective terms are examples of thuggish behaviour which large companies use to beat up their suppliers. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said on the previous amendment about suppliers having a choice about whether they want to supply large companies. I do not think it is quite that simple. The companies we are talking about—major supermarkets and the like—have tremendous power, and suppliers have no option but to supply them, so this is not a contest of equals but of David and Goliath, and in this case Goliath usually wins.

As my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said, just before Christmas Premier Foods, the maker of Mr Kipling cakes and Hovis bread, told suppliers that they could lose their contracts unless they made cash payments to remain suppliers. That time, it misjudged the mood. The press took up against it, and very quickly it backed down. Perhaps that is a good example of shaming some of these companies about what they do. However, the practice still exists and our amendment gives the Secretary of State power to prohibit a company requiring a supplier to make a payment in order to join that company’s list of suppliers.

Even worse is the ability of companies to alter the terms of payments unilaterally. I have seen it personally in a family business and with suppliers to big retailers. A supplier fulfils all the terms of the contract and he waits and waits for a payment that never comes. Eventually the company contacts the supplier and says that payment could be made in a couple of days if only the supplier could accept a hefty discount. This is odious behaviour and in this amendment we seek to contain it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments on unfair practices and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for sharing his experience, including points of agreement. Unfair payment terms and practices hit small businesses the hardest and are simply unacceptable. I consequently have considerable sympathy with the intention behind these amendments.

Our intention is to drive a fundamental shift in payment culture—a paradigm shift in UK corporate behaviour to stamp out poor payment practices. Obviously, the key question is how we achieve this. One option is to seek to tackle each and every harmful practice as we spot it, but I suggest that this is futile. As the previous debate suggested, if businesses want to exert undue pressure on their suppliers, they are likely to find ways to do so. Because banning individual practices only tackles the symptoms, it will not drive a change in underlying corporate culture. We are doing something different and using a new transparency to drive change in corporate behaviour. The power of the new reporting requirement should not be dismissed. It will subject companies’ payment practices to full public scrutiny, thereby allowing poorer-performing companies to be named and shamed. In so doing, it will exert significant pressure on companies to move away from unfair practices.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned the case of Premier Foods, which I believe shows that transparency can successfully lead to swift change in practices. Following public scrutiny of its “pay to stay” practice, which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, rightly described as egregious, Premier Foods moved quickly to simplify its controversial supplier list scheme. The Government are clear that large companies should not be using their economic power to place further strains on already hard-pressed small businesses. The Secretary of State has already asked the Competition and Markets Authority to consider the available evidence on “pay to stay” clauses, which I hope will be welcome to the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Mitchell. The new reporting requirement will also elevate poor payment practices to become a boardroom issue. We have proposed that a company director signs off the report to ensure it is taken seriously at the very top.

We have tested this proposition with stakeholders, and most have shown little appetite for greater regulation on specific practices. Businesses in the UK value the freedom of contract that has been built up over hundreds of years but they strongly agree with the Government that increased transparency will help us to take significant steps to address the current imbalance in economic power which noble Lords have described so graphically. That is why we must focus our efforts on getting transparency right by putting in place a comprehensive, robust reporting requirement for all the UK’s larger companies. Clause 3 is already drafted sufficiently widely to allow the Government to require reporting on the subject of these amendments through secondary legislation.

I turn briefly to the detail of the amendments. Late payment legislation already sets a maximum 30-day period to quibble after the receipt of relevant goods and services. We sought views on this issue during our recent consultation. There continues to be little appetite for legislation. Our stakeholders tell us that they are reluctant to use current avenues to challenge due to fears of damaging relations with customers—a point which has already been made. We also heard concerns that the change, as proposed, could result in unintended consequences, with companies starting to dispute more invoices as a means of gaining time to review them. Our stakeholders have instead called for increased transparency on dispute resolution processes. The Government will therefore require companies to report on these as part of the mandatory reporting requirement.

We also consulted on unilateral changes to payment terms. As a matter of contract law, unilateral changes cannot be imposed on a contracting party after the contract has been agreed. However, in reality, smaller companies, as has been said, may feel that they have no option other than to agree when such changes to an existing contract are proposed by bigger companies. A ban as proposed would not prevent this practice, as it would not prevent bigger companies from seeking changes and would not address the reasons why smaller companies feel unable to resist such changes—while effectively rewriting the core principles of contract law. Instead, therefore, our stakeholders supported increased transparency to shine a light on poor behaviour. I again propose to mandate reporting on this in our reporting requirement.

Charging suppliers to join or remain on supplier lists and seeking to reverse fixed payment and apply retrospective discounts and charges are deeply concerning practices. Although we could put in place a blanket prohibition on these practices, they are but two of the ways in which larger companies can seek unreasonable commercial advantage from smaller suppliers. Our stakeholders believe that bans on specific practices would be easy to sidestep.

Once again, increased transparency will help address the economic imbalance involved. Our stakeholders support increased transparency on the use of “pay to stay” clauses. I can commit to requiring companies to report on these practices in the reporting requirement. We also commit to holding further discussions with stakeholders to discuss whether reporting on other practices mentioned, such as retrospective discounts or charges, should be mandated in the prompt payment report—which, of course, we have the power to do. I hope the noble Lord agrees that I have sought to address his concerns through the medium of transparency and, on that basis, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

I thank the Minister for that reply, although I have to say that I remain extremely concerned about part of the approach. I know that the Minister shares a great deal of the concerns about this and that she is a very practical person who has looked at different ways to deal with it. Talking about transparency, culture and the possibility that there will be attempts to sidestep this is rather similar to closing the door after the horse has bolted. We are in that situation now. The Minister says that doing something more prescriptive will obviate what she is trying to do on culture, but I happen to think that it will work, while her approach will not.

I will give the example of a good friend of mine—perhaps they will not be after I have raised this—who is a senior member of a company that uses a method called central distribution charges, which is effectively “pay to stay” by another means. It uses it in the UK, but not in Germany, France or Italy. In the end, that is because it is not allowed to use it, as it is not a proper term. My concern is that we can say, “They will sidestep it”, but we are in that situation now.

Companies come to all sorts of arrangements. We hear great stories from companies such as Next, Dunelm or John Lewis, where the price you pay is the price you pay, but there are far too few of them. Many others use a variety of measures to ensure that they meet a margin way in excess of what they have agreed the contract should deliver. That is our concern. It is wrong to say we can do this using the means of the reporting mechanism, because there are other contract terms you can use to sidestep the reporting mechanisms that we have. A much better and more effective way of doing this and stopping every such method is to create the architecture and a framework to look at what you can stop.

A very famous online company has a 40 to 50-day payment period. At 90 days they send fines, which you then have to contest. There is no individual you can speak to—it has to be done online. Eventually, you will get your payment terms, possibly within 180 days. They extend it through a variety of mechanisms which would not be covered by the existing provisions or by the transparency arrangements. Those are the problems which we are still some way from meaningfully addressing. It is very important for us to consider how we go further on these asymmetries and poor practices and to look at the sorts of things which others, using more prescriptive means, have been able to address through legislation or regulation.

There is a strong case for these amendments. I am conscious that the Minister has made some progress, if it is somewhat glacial compared to what I would prefer. However, on the basis that we can get the Government to take these matters seriously and that they are prepared to deal with the most egregious examples and to start dealing with where companies and poor practice ends up, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I worked for most of my life in a sector where we were often referred to as being in the last-chance saloon—the newspaper industry. It is perhaps a more appropriate analogy to make to the pub sector and its owners. Many attempts have been made to grapple with this issue. My noble friend mentioned four Select Committees. There have been unintended consequences in profusion as we have tried to deal with the issues over the past 10 or so years. We have to get it right this time and anticipate, where we can, any actions that could try to get round the intentions set by Parliament.

We are talking about small businesses. At its heart, what we are trying to achieve is to be in favour of free and fair competition. This means that ties must not create unfair pressures on individual publicans or give too much power to large companies. That is what this is about. When Parliament started to look at the whole beer industry over the last 20 or 30 years, it never anticipated the existence of pubcos. We can concentrate on them, but pubcos are already property companies that have overleveraged themselves—as, indeed, have many regional newspaper owners, as I know from experience. They are finding it difficult to survive and to invest. I will come on to that in a moment, because it is at the root of a lot of problems.

With their amendment, the Commons agreed to enshrine in law the principle that the tied licensee should not be worse off than a free-of-tie licensee. That is what the Commons laid down. I accept the concerns mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we do not want to go down a route where this is watered down and put into a consultation period of 12 months, and then find, as we emerge from the long grass, that it has been watered down even further. That is my concern. There are a number of weeks still to look at this. As we move to Report our task is not to water down what the Commons decided but to improve the workings of the code and the Commons’ intentions, to enable our pubs to be more sustainable, able to be improved and invested in, and to protect community institutions run by enterprising and hard-working publicans.

Over the last few weeks I have been pleased to visit a number of pubs owned by Punch and Enterprise. One visit was at the instigation of the management of Punch. I have to say that no lunches were involved, but they knew the way to my heart: they arranged for me to see the pub that is the principal pub of Portsmouth football supporters. I also visited some tenants on their own as part of my due diligence looking at aspects of the Bill.

I will deal with a number of particulars that are being raised in the amendments. First, let us look at the threshold. There is a change from the threshold being “all pubs” to 500 tied pubs. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated, the concern there is that it creates a distinction that might encourage companies to move tied pubs out of their remit so that they can get below the 500 limit. The original definition was, I think, based on the size of the company and the power that they are likely to have in the marketplace. There was also a concern to protect the smaller, family-owned brewery companies and their tied pubs. We are concerned about this change because we fear that it will provide an incentive for companies to reduce their number of tied pubs.

We also recognise that, in the leasehold model, there is a lot of movement between tied and non-tied pubs, where exploitation of market power can emerge. That is why it was thought important, in the original Commons clause, to link the two, so that the 500 threshold was across the board and not just related to the tie. The other aspect—there is a division here that the Minister should confirm—is that we are assuming that the 500 limit will be confirmed and can be changed, if necessary by affirmative action, if the response is that it is used to contrive ways round the threshold. However, the actual figure will not be enshrined in the primary legislation. I would like confirmation on that.

There are further issues on definition. The proposal is fundamentally to protect tied pubs but once the market rent option is exercised the tenant effectively will not be able to access the protection offered by this pubco. Someone said earlier that the rights of tenants will be preserved, but if they move from a company that is covered by the 500 threshold to one where it is not, they will lose some of their rights. We need to ask the Minister what her current thinking is in ensuring that some ongoing protection continues if a tenant moves to the market rent option.

We are concerned about the removal of the sale and the administration trigger points, as these are precisely the avenues that anybody trying to get round the legislation will go down. I also understand the concerns, particularly with the complication on the administration side—we all know it is a complex process—but speed is of the essence. We need to look at what protection is available to the tenant in sale and administration. If a company decides to sell and move a tied pub into another company that is below the threshold they will lose the market rent option right. Tenants will lose a right by that move. Is there some mechanism that can continue that protection after the sale for those tenants in that situation?

Similarly, on administration, I understand the complications. I have worked in that area at times in my career when companies—not my companies—have been in administration. I know that speed is of the essence and the complication of the MRO is an issue. Again, if somebody is a tenant in a company that goes into administration and moves into a company that no longer has the protection of the threshold, will they lose their rights? I think they will at the moment, but if we are to change the triggers we must look at that when we consider the reformed clause.

Another area in which concerns have been raised is the parallel rents assessments. When a tenant has the opportunity to go down the market rent option, the whole point of the parallel rent assessment is that it improves the information for the tenant in terms of helping him to make a decision as to his direction. Doing away with that for existing tenants needs to be looked at.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. I understand that there are two stages. There is a 21-day period when someone is trying to get agreement on the market rent option. If he goes down that route he has 90 days for it to be set and organised. But if we turn the 21 days into 90 days there will be a six-month period of uncertainty, which clearly is not acceptable. In the initial negotiating period both parties might agree that they are making progress and are moving towards an agreement but they cannot meet the 21 days, so they could mutually agree to extend the period. That would be quite normal in a legal process in business. That is another area that should be looked at.

Something I noticed when I visited those pubco pubs was that some publicans had investment or were about to have investment. They are the tenants who are most likely to be pleased and probably in line with this, but not altogether. We need some protection for investment in the sector. As we go down the route of the market rent option it will have to reflect the investment that has been made in the pub.

I assume also that if the pub has had an investment, some agreement will have to be made on exactly how that would be funded. The tenant might well want less of an increase in rent and more on the wet rent because that is a marginal cost, as opposed to a fixed cost. These are quite complex issues but there is nothing stopping protection where the market rent option is a possibility; if there has been investment, it would normally be reflected in the market rent that is set.

With those comments, while I did not speak in our initial debate, I say that I am concerned. I had access to the order of the amendments only at about 12 o’clock today, so trying to prepare how the hell one was meant to reply to this debate was difficult when one did not know what the order was. A lot is required in working out what the final Clause 42 should have in it. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says but, as I imagine we have four weeks or so before we come back to this on Report, we will have to have a consultation on the detail so that we get this right.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to clarify one thing in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about my dear and noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who is not in his place. He does in fact drink at the Crown; the alternative option is the Red Lion. They both happen to be privately owned, so we will leave that one there.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for helping us to focus on the context of this debate. There is little doubt that a small business Bill is the perfect location for these provisions. During the discussions we have had on supporting small business, all sides of the Committee have raised issues to ensure that small businesses are given the support to allow them to operate efficiently and to have the right level of protections and opportunities for commercial activity, employment, growth and development. In the area that we are addressing today, we are looking at issues of asymmetric information, imbalances of bargaining power, behaviour and commercial restrictions—all issues that we have discussed in different ways on parts of the Bill.

We believe that the Bill should be a key part of the UK’s growth requirements, to be achieved by allowing commerce and markets to flourish and addressing impediments to functioning and competitive markets. This is why we are keen to support it. Commercial change, innovation, transformation and adaptability are crucial for the UK. With all the good that there is within the UK pub sector—although there has also been some bad, which many colleagues spoke to so eloquently at Second Reading—it is a market that should see itself as being enabled by the proposed legislation and the measures that we are debating today. We certainly see the market rent only option in this context. It is a firm pro-business and pro-market principle that we are pleased to see in the Bill.

Labour has long argued for a market rent only option as the only way of guaranteeing the principle that tied tenants are no worse off than their free-of-tie counterparts. We have brought the issue to a vote in the Commons four times. Under the original Bill, licensees would merely have had the right to ask their pub company to show them how much their rent would be under a free-of-tie scheme. This was problematic, as all the information would be held by the pubcos; all the calculations would be crunched by their accountants and all the final estimates made by them. Even if they then revealed that the landlord would be better off free of tie, they would have had no legal right to demand this option.

The Government’s own response to a consultation on a statutory code, printed in June, concluded that,

“a mandatory free-of-tie option … is popular with many tenant groups and might arguably offer the simplest way of ensuring a tied tenant is no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant”.

However, for reasons known only to them, it took a new clause and a massive Back-Bench rebellion for the Government to come to what in our view was the right conclusion. Now that they are there, we are very pleased that they are working hard on how we can make this work. The proposed new clause puts the right principles back into the Bill. It delivers a mandatory free-of-tie option that allows publicans to buy their beer on the open market. The Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee concluded that this was the only way to ensure that landlords would be no worse off than if they were free of tie, as it would force pubcos to offer tied tenants the best deals.

We are in a somewhat complex position. We have had amendments tabled very late and I saw the impact assessment only on my way into the Committee today. It is not simple and straightforward, and the lack of time to adequately identify where we are on all these matters has generated a great deal of examination and commentary. Some aspects were expected, but there is a great deal of concern about the approach in detail. I look forward to listening to the comments and explanations that the Minister is going to give. I expect she will have quite a bit to do today. We should make it clear that although we are supportive of the Government’s approach—

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point about what will be in the legislation and what will be in the code. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and we are all concerned about it. If there are two sides to the argument, both sides are suspicious that consultation will mean that they lose out one way or the other. Have the Opposition reached a view on how much can be in the code and how much in the Bill, or are we still working that out?

[Lord Mendelsohn]

As I am pressed, there are a number of details where that balance is the issue we have to address. Perhaps we need some more comments from the Government in explanation of the current provisions. We are also looking for the direction of travel to help give us a real sense of what should and should not be.

As I said, although we support the Government’s approach, we take the view that some of their drafting has lost the strength and essence of the Commons amendment. We are keen to ensure that what is passed is workable and sensible and we are happy to work together on this. However, to be fully satisfied, we need to see an evolution on Report, in a couple of important respects. We are keen for an indication that the Government would show some willingness to consider changes. There is a very important need to provide detail and direction. There are some issues which should be dealt with in the Bill but others whose place is in secondary legislation. We will be looking for a strong indication of the direction of travel to provide us with the right assurances that we will be looking at the right sort of areas and issues at the next stage. There is also a requirement for clarity in what we would describe as “dual-use clauses” where the drafting suggests that a measure could be used for two diametrically opposed purposes. In that regard, it would be useful if the Government would give an indication of how it is used for one and not the other.

We understand the concerns of the many different parts of the industry that variously have particular and shared issues with the Bill as it stands. We appreciate their need for greater clarity to ensure that they can make decisions and reasoned evaluations. We have a great industry in this country and we expect that the legislation will make it greater. We have met with a number of companies and I have been impressed with their management. There will be some costs and adjustments to make, and listed companies with short-term expectations—hyped by banks’ analysts—will be put under particular pressure. As my noble friends have said, a number of business models were dubious to begin with.

Many of the managements of the companies I have spoken to will fare very well indeed under the new provisions. They are a very capable group, readily able to innovate and develop new, efficient and sound commercial operations, relationships and models. They are, indeed, doing so in the face of a number of factors which have hugely affected the industry over the last decade, including the amount of beer that is bought in supermarkets, the change in consumer tastes, substitutional competition and other sorts of regulation. It is right that their concerns are properly addressed: we may not agree with some of them but we are certain they should be properly considered and clarity provided as far as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out her thinking on the future of the industry.

We would appreciate a fuller understanding on the issue of investment. Pubcos have come to us to say that they will be discouraged from making investments in their estate. We have tried hard to get a full estimate of whether that investment is income-generating or is just for maintenance, because these alternatives offer different returns on capital. This addresses my noble friend’s point that the property element of this is very different to the other commercial aspects. We have not had sufficient clarity on that but we take the point that we need to address this question.

For example, if a pub company were to redecorate a pub and install new aspects at a cost of £50,000, it would be reasonable to expect a return on that investment over time. The company’s view would be that it would be unfair for the tenants to go to a market rent only provision six months later. They say that this would discourage them from making the investment. They suggest that the pubco should be able to make it a condition of their investment that a contract of around five years would come into force and supersede the old one, so the tenant could go MRO only where the code had otherwise been breached. They would like this assurance in the Bill. Can a pub company reach an agreement with a tenant to establish a new agreement in return for an investment and therefore postpone a rent review for five years? Is that one of the provisions of the Bill? Could we provide some certainty on whether they have the scope to do that? Perhaps the Minister could address this matter in detail.

It would also be helpful to have clarity on allowing breweries that qualify as large pub-owning companies to require tenants taking the MRO option to continue to stock certain of their products. Organisations such as CAMRA have said that they are comfortable with this provision as a means of ensuring that the brewing pub-owning companies can continue to distribute their brands. Companies, understandably, are wondering what parameters are available to them now, and what is likely to be in delegated legislation. It would be useful all round if the Minister gave us a better sense of the Government’s direction of travel. For example, have they considered giving brewer pub companies the right to require that a tenant does not sell direct competitive products? Can the Minister provide a broader understanding of the nature and level of legal advice that the Government have taken on this, and of their expertise in evaluating the European competition considerations?

Similarly, what certainty do the Government intend to provide for brewers in Amendment 91ZA? Is it to ensure that they will have the right to require that an MRO tenant must stock their required beer and cider products? What is their evaluation of the argument that the brewers need the certainty that they will be able to require and enforce a stocking requirement as an integral part of the MRO lease offer? What are the Government expecting a stocking requirement to cover? Is it to specify the individual products to be sold, whether draught or bottled; does it include minimum purchase obligations, if necessary, to ensure incentives are made to sell its products and not those of a direct competitor; and would they require a tenant to prove that the stocking obligation has been met, given that the tenant is not required to purchase the specified products direct from the brewer or approved wholesaler?

There are some other areas worthy of consideration. We would appreciate some detail on the code and the adjudicator. The industry is interested in whether the Government’s view of the role and function has evolved since it was first introduced when there was no MRO provision, and whether it is likely to widen in scope in secondary legislation. It would also be very helpful if the Minister were able to indicate what lessons the Government have learnt from the current operation of the Groceries Code Adjudicator—which is not without some criticism—for how they will establish the Pub Code Adjudicator and the drafting of the code.

We are delighted that the MRO is now in the Bill, but we are also very aware of a need to strike a balance in the final legislation. Using the primary legislation to try and close every feasibly conceivable loophole while protecting tenants could put a straitjacket around the industry. Our amendments are designed to ensure that the legislation delivers on the intentions that we support but is not so restrictive as to cause harm to an industry we all want to see thrive. Some of our amendments are probing in nature to make sure that we have a clear sense about some of the detail. In this House we need to answer two questions—what should be in the code, and who it should cover—before sending the Bill back to the Commons. That is what these amendments intend to clarify.

Amendment 89AA is a probing amendment. This clause examines the provision that tied tenants can trigger an MRO only when changes specifically impact on their business as opposed to pubs in general, including managed houses, hotels and free houses. As it is currently written, if there was suddenly a global increase in, say, the price of barley, which was passed on to all licensed traders, the tied tenant could use this unforeseeable event as a trigger to go MRO if the price increase was passed to them. Is it the Bill’s intention that an MRO option could be triggered in such circumstances? What is the Government’s view of how “unforeseen events” would operate? Would this include actions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does it mean unforeseen at the time of contract, or does “unforeseen” apply to things that would ordinarily be put in a risk register to establish potential risks that could happen to a business? Do “unforeseen” and a risk register become mutually exclusive? Does an unforeseen event have to have a particular impact and effect on all kinds of alcohol sales? Is this drafted so that if, for any reason, those in tied pubs were to be charged excessively more than free-of-tie and other tenants, tied tenants should be allowed to react against this specific treatment? We would be grateful for any indications on this.

We believe that Amendments 89AB and 89AC will remove ambiguity from the Bill and ensure that the trigger points can be activated only when all these specific criteria are in place. We are looking for an explanation of how the Government arrived at the current drafting.

On Amendment 89AD, we feel that there is a problem with the Government’s use of “level of trade” as a trigger point, which merely refers to how many pints a pub is selling and not to the deeper situation. For example, if a pubco increased its supply prices and the tenant felt that they could increase the price at which they sell a drink to the public because of local competition, their level of trade would remain static. However, their overall profitability could be fatally undermined. The amendment would ensure that the overall level of profit would be the key factor.

On Amendment 89AE, the idea that a transfer of title should be used as a trigger point was originally placed in the Bill for very good reasons—for example, in the case of a tenant who agreed to a tied contract for five years with a large pub company, but who found after two years that they were now the tenant of a smaller pub company that was not covered by the code if their pub was sold. However, if this power is given carte blanche it could stifle the pub sales market, which would not be sensible for the overall health of the sector, particularly where smaller companies could revive pubs in their local area.

Likewise, it would not be right for publicans to be stuck in a tie when their circumstances have significantly changed and they no longer have any of the protections of the code. This amendment would make it clear that transfer of title alone is not enough, but if such a transfer detrimentally affected a pub, the landlord should be able to assert his or her rights. We would be grateful for some understanding of how the Government arrived at the current drafting.

Amendment 89AF is in response to concerns raised with us by publicans and those in the industry. There is a feeling that there are ways that companies that we would all accept should be covered by the code could get around it as it is currently written. One such way is that a business owning 2,000 pubs could split itself into five smaller concerns, each of which would own fewer than 500 pubs, but to all intents and purposes the same ownership structure would exist. There may be myriad ways that lawyers—some clever, some just expensive—could exempt their clients from the code. However, as noted, we do not want the code to be so long and onerous as to paralyse the industry. We therefore believe that it would be right to create this power, which we hope will never need to be used, to act as a powerful deterrent against such egregious behaviour and ensure that the spirit of the code is always fulfilled.

In general, we are concerned that some of the drafting could create a situation where there may be ways to avoid the Bill’s intentions. We take these concerns very seriously. We do not feel in a position to prepare any amendments that would not be without flaws at this stage, but we would be very keen to work with the Government to ensure that any potential risks are addressed. We are keen to hear some assurances from the Government that they will look very carefully at these matters and their general approach to avoidance, and how they think those assurances could be met in the operation of the legislation, the code and the adjudicator. In particular, we are concerned about how the triggers will work and whether they will provide sufficient protection to small businesses. We want to be assured that the protections are there to stop triggers being used to game the legislation.

We also make a general point to urge that the new code is swiftly implemented via secondary legislation within 12 months of the enactment of the Bill. In short, we need to ensure, as the Bill progresses, that it secures the best of the existing model, reforms what is needed and eliminates bad practice. We understand that that is where the Government are on this. Some reassurances would be very helpful.

I hope that the Minister will forgive me for being so forward and will find the following suggestion useful. We think that the right way forward is to let the Government have their amendments today and return, after discussions with all parties, with amendments to those amendments to strengthen them in the light of these discussions. We hope that we can get a clear assurance on that and a strong commitment that that is what we will see in the Bill on Report. That would be useful reassurance at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mendelsohn]

I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for some excellent amendments. It is important to understand this in the context of the Bill. Amendment 68T addresses one of the big issues we have with information in commercial sectors, which works terribly to the disadvantage of small businesses. We think that very serious consideration should be given to this. Amendment 68U considers the opportunities to create market access for small businesses. That would be very useful and have many beneficial by-products, and would certainly trigger a great deal of capacity for small businesses to thrive in a sector with dominant market features.

I encourage the Government to look very sympathetically towards these amendments. There are issues with Amendment 68U. I did a quick calculation of what it might cost the industry; I do not think it is that much but I would be very interested if the Government came forward with whether or not they think there are any difficult parameters to it. I am not convinced that there are. It would be useful if the Government were to come forward very positively on this.

My noble friend Lord Whitty made a very important point in the previous group of amendments: it is nice to hear that matters will be taken seriously, but there was a great deal of anxiety on this side as we went through that group. As we get to other groups of amendments, such as the one beginning with Amendment 96ZB, we will look for greater assurances that these matters will be taken seriously. However, on small businesses, this is a very neat and useful group of amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for these amendments. In the spirit of collaboration, perhaps I can explain why we see them as problematic and see whether he agrees.

Amendment 68T would require pub-owning companies to publish wholesale prices. Even if that requirement was limited to alcoholic drinks, it would make public the details of a commercial financial arrangement between two parties to the world at large—including the pub owner’s customers, if I have understood the amendment correctly. It is important to stress that in this Part of the Bill we are regulating the relationship between tied tenants and their pub companies. At no point in our consultations has the need to publish wholesale prices emerged as a requirement to address unfairness. To do so would be an additional piece of regulation for the sector on top of the regulation we are introducing. In a few cases, pub-owning companies that we expect to be covered by the code already publish their wholesale drink prices online. Others publish those prices on a site with access restricted to their own tenants. Others do not publish them at all. On beer prices, tied tenants will tend to pay higher prices for their beer than from an outside wholesaler. That is integral to the tied deal. We recognise that transparency is important, and the Pubs Code already provides that transparency where it is needed—in the relationship between the tenant and the pub-owning company. As I said, the Pubs Code will require the wholesale prices to be provided to the tenant, as well as the current and relevant price lists.

Turning to Amendment 68U on guest beer, when the Government consulted on the issues and evidence that preceded the drafting of these clauses, we included questions about guest beer. The reasons for rejecting that option were clearly set out in our response to the consultation. Some will remember that I come from an all-male family of very keen beer drinkers, so I sympathise with the point, but while there was considerable support for the right to stock a guest beer, there were concerns about the potential for this to undermine the tied model by reducing the alignment of interests between the tenant and the pub company. This was because many tenants would select a draught lager as guest beer, which would typically be the biggest-selling beer. The proposal in the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to address this concern by stipulating that the guest beer should be limited to a brand of cask-conditioned or bottle-conditioned beer. I understand that. Unfortunately, this raises potential competition law issues. We are advised that restricting the guest beer to a particular type is likely to be contrary to EU competition law.

I hope that that background shows that the Government have considered the noble Lord’s proposition seriously and that, in the circumstances, he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I have only a few points to make on these matters as the issues have already been covered quite well. However, I want to stress that these are highly important to our consideration of the Bill and we will look closely at the evolution of the Government’s thinking on them. We stand ready to work with the Government on these amendments and are content to move forward with them in the Bill, on the basis of there being discussion at a later time. However, we would be very concerned if there were no further changes.

We are concerned with how the thresholds are framed. We accept that the Government are focused on the pub-owning companies and we are highly supportive of that. We do not like the formulation that uses the phrase “tied pubs”. We believe there is an overwhelming case to use the terms we proposed—“tenanted” and “leased”—and we would like to see these in the Bill. We have some sympathy with the Government’s predicament on getting these definitions right, but we hope they are willing to show some flexibility on it. There is considerable concern that the situation can be gamed and that the provision of a power to the Secretary of State to vary the number of 500, and to grant exclusions, could be a serious and significant weakening of the Bill or a measure to ensure that anti-avoidance measures can be made more effective.

It is very important that there is a much clearer statement about what the dual-purpose clauses are and that what we put in the Bill is consistent with the work of the other place. It would be very useful if the Minister could give us much greater reassurance on that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends and to noble Lords for their amendments. We are, of course, happy to meet with noble Lords to discuss how these amendments work, the needs of small business and anti-avoidance. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that reform should be about the tie. There is a difference in Committee this evening but a number of concerns have been expressed. These include the lack of draft regulations which, I am afraid, reflects the fact that MRO was a late amendment to this important Bill.

Having said that, perhaps I could talk a bit about the powers and then quickly address the amendments so that the Committee can understand where we are coming from, ahead of any discussions. First, any use of the power would need to be on the basis of strong evidence to justify the exclusion of a type of agreement or type of company. Without this evidence, it would be open to challenge. For example, if it were used to exclude one or two pub companies, it could be seen as a discriminatory use of the power and would lead to a high risk of successful legal challenge. Any attempt to undermine the principle of the legislation—that is, by exempting all pubs—would be an improper use of the power, as it would be subverting the will of Parliament.

Amendments 91AZA, 91BA and 91CA would include the free-of-tie market in the scope of our provisions. As I set out in my opening remarks, the evidence of the past 10 years, from the BIS Select Committee and the government consultation onwards, shows that the problems in the pub industry relate to abuses of the tied relationship. We do not have evidence of a problem in the free-of-tie or managed market.

Amendments 91A, 91B and 91C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seek to lower the threshold to capture pub companies with 100 or more tied pubs. I have probably covered this ground adequately in our earlier discussions, and in the interest of time, if the noble Lord is happy, I will not repeat the points.

I should probably talk about the need for Clause 68; that might be helpful. It is an important clause, as it is the means by which we can ensure that the definition of a “tied pub” does not inadvertently capture a restaurant or hotel premises. We are already aware of a fish and chip restaurant chain that may meet the definition as set out in Clause 65, and it is possible that there could be other such cases. We would be happy to talk through that concern. We all think that we know a pub when we see one and we think we know the difference between a pub and a fish and chip shop, but increasing food consumption in pub, gastropubs and so on has made separation by legal definition more complex. Clause 68 provides a power for the Secretary of State to exempt a particular type of tenant or premises from the Pubs Code by secondary legislation so that only pub premises are in scope.

The noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Whitty, were concerned about pubcos turning tied pubs into free-of-tie pubs by coming under the threshold. The evidence that we have of abuse is in the tied market. As I said earlier, if pub companies turned pubs into free-of-tie pubs, their ability to exploit their tenants through the tie would be gone.

Lastly—and I am sorry because he spoke first—my noble friend Lord Howard championed small operators, which I was glad to hear, and queried the power of the Secretary of State to amend the threshold by way of secondary legislation. The Government are clear that the threshold we have proposed of 500 or more tied pubs is the right one, because it is designed to ensure that the Pubs Code and the market rent only option are targeted at the part of the market where we have a problem. However, legislation needs to be capable of responding to changes in the market that may come about in the longer term—for example, if new pub ownership models were to emerge that merited exclusion from all or part of the code.

I hope that we can agree the government amendments so that we have a base for further discussion ahead of, and on, Report. In view of the explanations I have given, I hope that noble Lords will not move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Mendelsohn]

102ZA: Clause 156, page 143, line 19, at end insert—
“( ) The Scottish Government may lay before Parliament legislation to extend provisions under Part 4 to Scotland.”

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I guess that the least welcome comment would be, “It may be a one line clause but I have seven reasons for it”.

This is a very simple provision. Many Scottish Members of the other House, including members of the nationalist parties, voted to pass the code on the basis that the Scottish Parliament would have an off-the-shelf code to implement in their own jurisdiction should they so wish. This amendment ensures that this option stays open.

It is right that it should be for Holyrood to decide. It is a devolved matter for which they have responsibility. While it does not form part of the legislative consent memorandums under consideration by the Scottish Parliament on the measures in the Bill that the Scottish Government may be looking at, it was felt worthwhile to make this provision possible so that it would be plausible for them to do so in the circumstances that they so wished. There are many in Scotland who have reported that there may be some interest in this, and, again, that is not a matter for us. I am very pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in his place. He and many others have been attuned to what is discussed there. If we amend this sensibly and well, we will be in a position to have something which, in the circumstances that the Scottish Parliament would think this is the right thing, they would be able to use. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lindsay]

I am very much hoping that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that there are and have been instructive discussions with the Scottish Government on this point and that the dialogue with the Scottish Government has not come too late in the day for a co-ordinated cross-border approach, either via a Sewel Motion in this Bill or via parallel legislation introduced in Holyrood. Reassurance on these points is important in the context of this Bill, but it also has a wider importance.

Just last week, the Government published the document, Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement, in which they stressed that it was essential that there was effective intergovernmental working and close collaboration between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. That statement restated an important recommendation from the Smith commission report, published in November 2014. That, in turn, restated a central recommendation of the Calman commission in 2009, on which I sat. This is the reason for my interest in my noble friend being able to reassure us that there has been timely, constructive dialogue between London and Edinburgh on this Bill and on this particular point.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and for giving me the opportunity to say something about the application of these measures in Scotland. I am delighted to hear from my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I have discussed this matter with him and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, outside the Committee. The measures in Part 4 of the Bill apply to England and Wales only, of course. This is because regulation of tied pubs is a devolved matter in Scotland and it is for the Scottish Government to make their own legislation. Should they decide to legislate, they would not need any additional powers to be conferred by the UK Government.

My honourable friend Jo Swinson has recently written to the Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism encouraging the Scottish Government to consider bringing forward their own legislation in this area. My officials stand ready to assist as necessary. We understand that the Scottish Government have been engaging stakeholders from all sides of the debate and are considering whether there is evidence for a similar intervention in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord will, therefore, accept that his amendment is not required.

Before I sit down, as this is the final day of the Committee, I should like to take a brief moment to put on record my thanks at the end of what—for some of us—has been a dry January, which has rightly ended with us talking about beer. First, I would like to thank all the patient Chairs of our Committee and those behind the scenes: Hansard, the clerks and the doorkeepers who have helped ensure our debates run smoothly and finish on time. I am also very grateful to my noble friends Lord Popat, Lord Newby and Lord Nash, on this side of the House, for their support in steering this Bill through Committee, and to my noble friend Lord Stoneham for being so loyal an attendee.

Furthermore, I would like to thank officials from the nine government departments who have been here to support the Government: BIS, the Treasury, HMRC, the Department for Education, UK Export Finance, DCLG, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Justice and DWP. We even talked about Gibraltar on the day that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, went missing and I would like to congratulate him on the refreshing new perspective he has brought to our work. I would also like to say how glad I was to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, back today. I know he has been ill and we have had great collaboration with him and his colleagues.

Most importantly, I thank the noble Lords opposite, and all noble Lords who have been involved in the Committee, for their contributions to our debates. We have scrutinised the Bill in full, with some good and thorough debate. I have welcomed the spirit of co-operation that has been apparent even today. This is a vital Bill because small businesses are the engine of Britain. This Bill will help them innovate, grow and compete in many ways—from prompt payment to access to Government contracts. I look forward to noble Lords’ support for the Bill in its remaining stages to ensure that it reaches the statute book this spring.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. On our amendment, all I would say is that between now and Report we will have some indication of where the Scottish Government are going, and we may well return to it in due course. At this stage, we would be very interested to hear her response.

I say from this side a strong thank you to the Chairmen, doorkeepers, officials, Hansard, and everyone else who has helped with these proceedings, and to colleagues for being such an interesting group in getting to grips with the Bill.

This is done in a spirit of co-operation. There are many occasions in politics where we are at daggers drawn, and many on which we find common cause. Sometimes we are in the middle. This is one where we are rather more towards one pole than the other. Our biggest criticism of the Bill is that it does not go far enough, but it would be churlish to say that that is a reason why we should not give it a great deal of co-operation. In that regard, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Popat, and the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their contributions to the debate. I hope that in the weeks we have, on some of the more interesting issues, we can continue that spirit of co-operation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 102ZA withdrawn.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Mendelsohn Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Mendelsohn]

3: Clause 3, page 3, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “shall”

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11.

We are concerned with the effective operation of the policy in this legislative framework. We have deep concerns that the legislation as drafted will have unintended consequences that will put small businesses in a weaker rather than a stronger position. The Government’s approach addresses only the information asymmetry and addresses insufficiently the market power asymmetry. This means that the Government’s current proposals are likely to benefit larger entities and to provide little for SMEs other than better knowledge of how weak their position really is.

The huge advantage of our proposals is that they use transparency to change culture by enshrining good practice, reinforcing duties and making enforcement attractive to large companies. This will not just address the growing problem and impact of late payments but promote a more competitive and effective market where the velocity of the circulation of cash will have a positive impact on growth productivity and business activity. We have been struck by some of the grumblings around the business discussion paper, Building a Responsible Payment Culture, and the feeling that somehow too much weight was given to the concerns and interests of those with the most interest to protect. Our proposals meet more clearly the overall policy objectives of the Government and are consistent with the central concerns of SMEs.

In considering our proposals and given the range of evidence and data the Government have, in the possible event that they remain unpersuaded by the overwhelming logic and attractiveness of our amendment, could BIS make available the evidence demonstrating that our suggestions would be less effective in achieving the outcomes we share? I think that any independent economic model would strongly endorse the positive benefits of our approach.

I would be grateful, too, if the Government’s current consultation for the Bill, when published, were to detail more clearly where the responses were from—the particular areas and sectors, and whose interests they reflect. I also request that the Minister gives some consideration to making our suggestions available to some key stakeholders to integrate as a small addendum to the consultation.

The model we propose is compelling. Has the Minister any current modelling that should dissuade the Government from accepting our amendments? What assurances can she give that the £40 billion—or £45 billion, or £50 billion—in late payments currently outstanding can come down over time with anything like the scale needed to show that these proposals from the Government will succeed? What is the anticipated decline? How strongly can this be addressed? I would be happy for her to test the efficiency of our model against that of the Government. I am very conscious of the exhortation of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that we need action. Certainly, we need to ensure that any measures that benefit small businesses do so as swiftly as possible.

Our amendments work as a package, reflecting the fact that, as all research and experience shows, late payment might be the most egregious practice but it is not the only one. In may be the easiest to identify and quantify, and it may even have the largest economic impact, but it may not be the worst or most shocking payment practice. Late payment is one element of the payment story. There are problems with withholding payments or fines, and with retrospective charges and retrospective payments.

I thank the small businesses, and their advisers and representatives, who provided us with a great deal of background information. The detailed and voluminous stories we have heard and keep hearing—yet which people do not want to go on the record over—provide some evidence of the weakness of approaching this solely by way of transparency, information and exhortation. I will outline in more detail some of the problems in this area when talking about Amendment 10.

Our amendments on this try to provide a more practical framework to meet the objectives of the Bill. Clause 3 provides that:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations impose a requirement, on such descriptions of companies as may be prescribed, to publish … prescribed information about the company’s payment practices and policies relating to relevant contracts of a prescribed description”.

Amendment 3 changes this “may” to “shall” to make it a firm requirement. By the Government’s own standard, changing culture would require a common series of obligations and practices. Has the Minister any data or economic models that would demonstrate that there is a more effective way of making these changes other than by means of a universal provision?

Amendment 4 is a practical way to make culture change. We propose that rather than the Bill being a way to make it acceptable to complain about late payment, we encourage a business operating culture of paying on time and sticking to contracts. By making this a more clear obligation on the part of the companies that are required to pay, we also meet the problems of dealing with the consequences of poisoning commercial relationships and for the exercise of market power concentration and intimidation to allow poor practices to continue. The amendment requires companies to produce quarterly statements that list all payments to suppliers that have been paid more than 30 days after the suppliers agreed payment terms, without a formal query having to be made. We are aware that concerns have been raised with BIS that unless time limits are properly identified there would be an ever-increasing pressure on small businesses to accede to extended timescales for the settlement of payments. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline how the Government feel this would operate in practice, and how small businesses will be able to resist such pressures.

Amendment 6 asks for assurances from the relevant auditor that the company is maintaining accurate and honest financial records and statements. What is therefore expected of auditors is exactly the same as now. We would require them to exercise broader and clearer judgment in these matters. Confirming that the accounts represent a true picture of the economic position of the company and that it is a going concern should be qualified if the only way it can meet its cash flow or profit targets is by late or poor payment practices.

Amendment 7 would establish that the financial reporting officer shall be liable for false reporting. If there were false reporting, the business would be liable for a fine equivalent to no more that the amount it owed—the overall value of the invoice—and up to a maximum of £10,000 for false reporting. This therefore provides for not just clearer information but also for obligations to pay to be an audit requirement, and for enforcement to be undertaken through existing government agencies. It also makes shareholders and company boards protecting their and the company’s long-term interests hold their executives properly to account on these matters.

Amendment 9 makes it an offence for companies not to fulfil compensation payment plans which have been made by more than 30 days. It has the effect of empowering small businesses, putting the onus on big businesses to report themselves. Failure to complete a quarterly return would be subject to a fine upon conviction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I am encouraged that these amendments have triggered a long and very useful debate on late payment issues. I was struck by my noble friend Lord O’Neill, who spoke so persuasively about the central principle behind our amendments, which is to ensure that measures designed to help small businesses really and truly do so. It is in that context that the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, around over-regulation have to be seen. There is no point in legislating if the legislation does not achieve its aims. When we look at the size and scale of late payments, the extension of how long it takes for payments to be made and the drift over a number of years, unless we have measures that really will change this situation, we will fail to achieve those aims. It is important that what we do is effective and I do not think that an objection to making something effective is simply to say that it constitutes over-regulation.

Important points have been raised about some companies where there are consequences and cashflow difficulties, but the comments made by my noble friend Lord Mitchell are important. The price is the price and the time you should pay is the time you should pay. If there are problems, there should be an opportunity for companies to talk together and address them, but it should not be a case of taking unilateral measures or that these issues can be dealt with only through lawyers and the courts. We suggest that there should be effective discussions between the parties and that power relations which affect that sort of discussion should not be exercised unilaterally.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised a number of points which address some of the issues, but they did not fundamentally address the problems that we are trying to deal with—namely, the asymmetry of power. In relation to the issue of the burdens, much of what the Government are proposing and we are proposing could actually be achieved through software packages that are already available. I think that the preparation of these reports would be a lot more pleasurable than VAT returns on a quarterly basis.

I want to say in relation to Amendment 5 that I was impressed with the Grant Thornton document. It certainly identified the costs which it suggested could be taken out. I actually thought that it would be the largest beneficiary of those costs, and it is impressive to see an accountancy firm not supporting the position of its own fees. I thought that the document was a very useful introduction to the debate. However, the costs are still significantly lower than the benefits identified by the Government, so I would say even within that context that I cannot see the strength of the case. We therefore are strongly of the opinion that this needs one definition.

I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. We are encouraged by some things and discouraged by others. We are certainly encouraged that as regards Amendment 3, there is an assurance that “may” will become “shall”, and that it will perhaps morph into “shall” in the drafting. We are also grateful for her reassurances on some particular measures, and in relation to the overall aims that we are both trying to achieve. In relation to the consultation, which we look forward to reading, we would request, however, that we are not looking at an edited summary but more extensive reporting of the fuller sense of the discussions.

I have to say that some of the other measures still do not address fundamental problems. It is not the case that these charges are frequently imposed by consent, as was mentioned in relation to Amendment 10; they are dealt with unilaterally. That has been under-emphasised. On Amendment 9, the responses indicate that penalties would not be of benefit. That is understood within the context where the companies would have to be the ones that tried to achieve those penalties, which would not be of benefit—there is no doubt about that. We are trying to make sure that the obligations are changed so that companies see that it is of benefit to make the payments. In that way, we are addressing the issue of culture change. Transparency and information are a necessary but insufficient condition to make that change, and given the position of small businesses and the amount of money outstanding, we have to be conscious that these measures would succeed significantly in providing economic change.

However, we still have some matters to consider, some responses to receive and some greater opportunity for the Government to look at this matter. Although I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept our proposals, I hope that she can do so in due course. The message that goes out from here should not be that this side is the only one that really believes in getting things done and is on the side of small businesses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.