Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Risby Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Risby (Con)]

My Lords, during my entire life as a parliamentarian, the health and enduring viability of the small business sector has been at times a matter of concern, with Governments of all stripes to some extent failing or falling short of being able to deal effectively with the one key necessity for the success of these businesses: cash flow. I declare an interest in that I was for many years the deputy chairman of the Small Business Bureau.

I warmly welcome the opportunity that this Bill offers and the manner in which the Minister explained it. It shines a light on the key element here: late payments. In many parts of the country, we see evidence of the consequences of this, including a visible deterioration in the range of commercial activity on our high streets. We have even seen the growth of charity shops, however admirable their causes, go into reverse, despite lower business rates for them because of the more recent national insurance hikes and high electricity prices.

What is true is that the British Business Bank and the Office of the Small Business Commissioner provide reassurance and support, yet far too many businesses close every day, with all the consequences for employment; hence the welcome increases in the authority and empowerment of the Small Business Commissioner, including naming and shaming and the enforcement of fines.

At the heart of this is businesses having confidence; I know this as one who started a business. Confidence is fundamental for start-ups. Of course, further risk assessments always arise when expansion is contemplated and the velocity of payments becomes even more crucial. Is the Minister satisfied that those with small businesses are, or will be, able to go online and check out the payment policies of larger supplier organisations?

Information is the key. Is the Minister content that, where possible, the average time to pay is clearly indicated? Nothing would be more valuable than being able to start a new search with ease by simply entering the business name of a supplier. It is one thing to have a payment performance report, but how can it best be used and, importantly, ensure the monitoring of evidence? It would be good for smaller businesses to feel comfortable about accessing a league table indicating the time to pay. This would incentivise suppliers to be the best. Supermarkets already supply this information. If the best suppliers are clearly known, they will attract business and fulfil this role. This would enhance the integrity of the supply chain.

Then it comes to enforcement. Is the Minister satisfied that the office of small business, with enhanced powers, has the capacity to be effective in representing SMEs’ interests? For example, how many individuals will be attached to this role in the future, which is so vital given its expanded duties?

A number of local authorities do, admirably, pay rapidly, so I turn to the 60-day ruling. If there is the possibility—and I hope not—that this will cause a drift upwards, elongating payment times rather than the reverse, then this would be regrettable. I would welcome clarification about public authorities paying in 30 days, but why cannot private companies do the same? This is a question that I have been asked to put forward this afternoon.

We want to attract more foreign businesses to boost our GDP, highlighting the importance of getting not only the right legislation but a clear message that this country is open for business. For 10 years, like others I was one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys. Access to information about business opportunities in this country has hugely increased over this period. I pay tribute to our embassies abroad in this pursuit. Nevertheless, our export and import relationships are not at the sophisticated and all-embracing level that we find so frequently in other countries, where export activity is promoted through SMEs by these countries and through encouraging their activity abroad, supporting and creating an environment for our small businesses to thrive. They are, after all, the seed corn of the economy. This would be very welcome to all of us in your Lordships’ House, but there is certainly more work to be done.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord Risby Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Risby (Con)]

My Lords, we greatly look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, but I think it is fair to say that in terms of a maiden speech, we have had a massive treat today. It was an absolutely superb speech. I have known my noble friend for many years. After graduation, he actually became a barrister specialising in family law in practice, but he also at an early stage started writing speeches for some of our most distinguished parliamentarians and, indeed, subsequently followed in that vein by becoming the Member of Parliament for Wantage in 2005.

I would particularly like to highlight one aspect of the whole diversity of his actions as a Minister, and in his life in general. In 2010 he was appointed as Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries. I make no party-political point when I say that, pre Covid, there was a most extraordinary flowering of artistic and cultural endeavour in this country. Those involved in these industries knew one thing: they had a champion in the form of this Minister. He was absolutely committed to his role and to making structural reforms. For example, just one initiative was a new tax regime for the film industry, and we have seen this brilliant flowering of the British film industry in consequence.

When he left office, 150 of the most distinguished people in the arts and the creative industries wrote a letter to him just to say, “Thank you”. On reflection, this must be the very first time that this group has ever written such a letter to a Conservative arts Minister. I congratulate him warmly on an outstanding speech, and I look forward to many contributions with his brilliant sense of humour in the future.

Before entering your Lordships’ House, I represented a constituency in which there was a prison, and I would just like to mention this little story. The Roman Catholic chaplain asked to see me urgently, because of an atmosphere that was becoming very negative in this prison, and because a group of inmates was showing total hostility in an aggressive way towards him. I spoke to the prison governor, who knew about this but, quite frankly, did not know how to handle it. I discovered that a group of individuals was allegedly being sent, with official permission, to provide family and community contact with these particular individuals. In reality, they were radicalising them and spreading the poison of political extremism. I inquired further and found out that this particular group—who were going to other prisons as well—was actually being paid by the Government to fulfil this role. I simply say: thank goodness that all of this is now understood much better, and we move on to a more comprehensive understanding of the dangers that beset our society with the whole process of radicalisation in our prisons.

Of course, we must handle these matters with proportionality, not least to secure community support and to avoid community disconnection. However, it is plain today that, following some more recent atrocities, legislative action is required. Radicalisation and gang culture are now features of prison life, and let us never forget the immense strains this imposes on prison officers and their families.

I believe the Bill, being the largest overhaul of terrorist sentencing and monitoring for some time, is ready for moving on and being accepted into law. Of course, there are issues about young offenders, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 21, but let us remember that they are entitled to vote at the age of 18, and of course there are some who believe they should be entitled to vote at the age of 16. The atrocities in Manchester have given us a very clear signal about this. So I believe that this legislation balances the need to ensure that justice is served on those who commit the most serious crimes, but, as far as those who participate in lower-level activity, my noble friend the Minister may wish to comment further on this and on the issue of deradicalisation and reintegration into normal society, because it is all of real significance.

I happen to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Algeria, and it may come as a great surprise to know that as, perhaps, an enduring result of the terrible war of independence, the Algerian Government, in addition to observing the rise of religious extremism, initiated at an early stage a really comprehensive and much-admired deradicalisation and reintegration policy. This has been most successful inasmuch as very few young Algerians went to support ISIS and, indeed, the mass demonstrations that have been taking place there have never been captured by religious extremists.

I conclude by saying that this legislation will see our most dangerous terrorists spending longer in custody while more effectively managing those who have been released. Therefore, I support the Bill.

EU Action Plan Against Migrant Smuggling (EUC Report)

Lord Risby Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Risby (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who will be greatly missed on our committee. I know I speak for all members of the committee when I pay tribute to the excellent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. I thank him for so superbly chairing our proceedings and for so effectively summarising our report on Operation Sophia. I also applaud the work of the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.

Every day, tragically, our television screens are filled with dramatic pictures of anxious people arriving in Italy from Libya. There are horrific reports of people drowning, seduced by criminal gangs into travelling in flimsy vessels, often having parted with their life savings. We have heard of the inadequacy of the remit of Operation Sophia and the inadequate resources to deal with the flow of migrants, but at least lives have certainly been saved.

There are 7 billion people living on our planet and there are millions who are on the move, who would like to be on the move or who plan to be on the move, either internally or externally. What is clear is that there is a very limited overall framework to deal with this phenomenon, even regionally in Europe. Public opinion all over the world is divided as to how, in practice, to deal with this, the phenomenon of our age, ranging from the compassionate to the violently antagonistic.

Of course, determining in principle and in practice how to distinguish between genuine refugees from war, violence and persecution and those simply seeking a better life, in order to react appropriately, is hugely difficult. Mercifully, we in this country do not have an extreme right wing but even perfectly legal migration to this country is clearly dramatically affecting public opinion. It is infecting public discourse in the United States and creating fissures in the European Union, and is something democratically elected politicians will not ignore. I mention this because what Operation Sophia has shown and the refugee influx has provoked is a need for a much more broadly based and coherent response from Europe.

In April 2014, working with the African Union, the EU agreed an action plan which focused on trafficking in human beings and all that flows from it. In part, the object of the exercise was to find a balance that would enable defined migrants who make it to Europe to be integrated successfully, and to deal with the issue of remittances, while looking towards the root cause of the migratory flows. This was taken further later that year with the Khartoum process, aimed at enhancing existing co-operation and specifically addressing the issue of people trafficking and smuggling. I therefore welcome the orientation of the EU Regional Development and Protection Programmes towards north Africa, the Horn of Africa and Nigeria, as recently proposed by the European Commission. A pilot project in Niger will encourage local protection and resettlement opportunities and offer assisted voluntary return options. Under the common security and defence policy, a key meeting this autumn with the African Union will try jointly to further address irregular migration, with all its ramifications.

Of course, greater political stability in Libya is the key to the more immediate resolution of the cross-Mediterranean flows. Sadly, there are very limited grounds for optimism at this time. However, I note that yesterday the United Nations Security Council unanimously authorised a crackdown on arms smuggling on the high seas of Libya, allowing the inspection of vessels to seize and dispose of illicit weapons, which are undoubtedly the source of terrorist activity in Libya by extreme radical groups. All this is important in both reassuring European public opinion and trying to bring about some acceptable governance to the chaotic situation in Libya.

What I have described are simply parts of what our report made clear: that the EU must with urgency develop a strategy that tries to tackle mass, irregular migration at source. Last week the European Commission proposed a new partnership framework with third countries, based upon the European agenda on migration. The aim is a good one: to deliver coherent EU engagement to encourage member states to combine their respective instruments and tools, and to agree to a collective compact with third countries in order better to manage migration, giving direct encouragement to those third countries to co-operate in migration management. A substantial sum of money has been envisaged for this purpose.

Clearly, and ultimately, this phenomenon of our time, mass migration, will require something even more comprehensive and a fresh architecture. In 1990, the UN agreed the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Of course, many countries today are extremely sensitive to what they perceive as unwarranted interference by regional or international organisations. However, building on what is now emerging in Europe, it would be useful and important for a more international process to be considered, by trying to bring together existing protocols and by examining the responses and practices of different countries.

If this is seen as something far into the realms of impossibility and impracticality, it is worth noting that in the last few years we have acted internationally in considering the consequences of the environmental degradation of our planet and the destruction of forests and wildlife. But the human, worldwide migratory challenge is now centre stage, and we ignore it at our peril. Operation Sophia has simply highlighted one facet of the enormous difficulties surrounding international migratory flows, but I hope that, through this report, it has added something to the necessary and inevitable debate about how to deal with the greatest human and social challenge of our age.