Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to start this Committee on the Commercial Payments Bill. In doing so, I declare my relevant technology interests as adviser to the Crown Estate and Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director of the Avalanche Foundation and Avalanche (BVI) Inc. The Bill is incredibly significant, particularly for a small business or microbusiness which has found itself for far too long on the wrong end of late payments.

In many ways, my Amendments 1 and 9 in this group go to the very essence of the Bill. There is much that is significant in the Bill but, largely, all of it is subsequent to that fundamental point around the 60-day and 30-day payment periods. Everything else in the Bill is largely supportive of that reality, so this first group of amendments addresses the fact that it is critically important that the Bill is absolutely precise as to when the clock starts and ends. As the Bill is currently drafted, it is not only entirely possible but an actuality for thousands of businesses that they will be told that they will receive 60-day payment terms, when in reality the payment may not arrive within 60 days, 80 days, 100 days or up to 120 days. That will still be possible if the Bill remains in its current form. There needs to be greater precision about the start point and end point of that clock.

Amendment 1 in my name addresses that start point and suggests that the purchaser has to give clarity to the supplier about how they are to give notice. This is critical because at the moment time can disappear, with an invoice or other notice being given by the supplier in good faith only for them to find themselves bounced around that often larger business—this is not necessarily because it is gaming, although sometimes that is certainly the case, but because of its multidepartmental and multipoint nature—until that 60-day clock starts. Amendment 1 addresses this and would sharpen up how that notice period has to begin. If clarity is not provided, the amendment would give clarity in that the notice can be deemed to have been given by the provider of the product by means of a recognised document that anybody in business would recognise—the obvious one being an invoice.

Similarly, Amendment 9 goes to the issue of verification. It would stop, as a consequence of the Bill, verification being used to expand or extend terms other than what the Bill seeks to achieve. Together, the amendments look at the start point of the clock and would give the precision required to stop days going by before day one is triggered. We will come to amendments in later groups about effective precision around ending the clock, but these amendments, particularly Amendment 1, would give the precision required for all involved to know that day one means day one. I look forward to the debate and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name. Before that, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on Amendments 1 and 9. These seem to be eminently sensible suggestions. I wonder whether, if the Small Business Commissioner makes very clear their view on when the clock starts ticking, that would make it very clear should any dispute become necessary. At the very least, there needs to be clarity from the Small Business Commissioner if these amendments are not accepted.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Leigh, for their support of Amendment 10. The intention of the amendment is clear. Increasingly, economic activity is switching from familiar structures and supply chains to one where businesses market their goods and services via third-party marketplaces and intermediaries, and where the subsequent payment goes back through those intermediaries. The amendment would bring such marketplaces and intermediaries into the context of the Bill by providing that payment is not treated as made to a supplier until the supplier actually receives the money, by requiring any intermediary that collects on a supplier’s behalf to pay it within seven days, regardless of how the intermediary is legally categorised.

I think this is a fair change, though I am sure that there will be resistance from the sector. The focus may well be on the time needed by the intermediary to make the payment to the vendor. A distinction may have to be made between when an intermediary has control of the goods in a warehouse and when it is purely acting as an agent. I am happy to have a discussion and debate about this, and there may be ways in which this can be dealt with. However, it would be very remiss for the legislation to leave your Lordships’ House without any provision, either primary or secondary, for the Small Business Commissioner to have or take the power to bring intermediaries into the remit of the Bill.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for introducing this debate. I welcome all noble Lords back for what will, I am sure, be a productive Committee stage.

I shall begin with Amendment 1. I understand the principle behind my noble friend’s approach. The Bill performs a balancing act, relatively successfully, between good payment practice and regulation. In achieving the former, we have to be careful not to overstep into the latter. It is my interpretation that new Section 2B, to be inserted by Clause 1, already succeeds in ensuring that both parties to a contract are made aware of the payment terms in the four cases that are accounted for. For that reason, I am hesitant to support requiring the purchaser to give instruction on how a payment notice should be given. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I ask the Minister first to outline what the Government regard as best practice for issuing notices under the Bill, which may very well include the Small Business Commissioner making it extremely clear what they think are the right best practice terms for issuing these notices.

I am much more supportive of my noble friend’s Amendment 9, which would prohibit the increasing of a verification period after the day on which the Bill is passed. The Bill is about increasing payment efficiency; ensuring that the verification of a payment does not take longer than was previously necessary is obviously a core part of achieving that.

Alongside my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Leigh of Hurley, I have added my name to Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is eminently sensible that an intermediary should not be used to delay or circumvent payment terms; in other words, an intermediary should be used as an intermediary. Ensuring that payments go through third parties swiftly and efficiently, and that the payment is not treated as complete until it reaches its final destination, is surely the key to improving payment practice. I hope that the Minister will agree in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by picking up where I left off in group 1, by briefly touching upon Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. Just as we should not define a payment as complete until it has passed through an intermediary and reached its final recipient, nor should it be considered complete until the supplier has received all owed funds. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendment.

I completely understand the strength of the arguments that were made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, on her Amendment 52. In particular, she raised a very interesting point about the likely deterrent effect on small businesses bidding for some of these longer-duration contracts. I suspect that more work needs to be done on that very subject to find out exactly what the scale of the problem might be. For now, while we think we should, of course, pay due regard to the ability of small businesses to make payments, we do not think they should come at the expense of other businesses receiving them. Making payments, of course, may create cash-flow issues, but exactly the same can be said about not receiving them or receiving them in instalments, as this amendment suggests. We therefore prefer the blanket payment period regardless of business size, as the Bill already suggests, while also acknowledging, as I have said, that we should be looking into this in more detail.

Moving on to the actual length of payment periods, I suspect that the argument for shorter payment periods will continue to rear its head through the passage of the Bill. I will therefore begin by making His Majesty’s Opposition’s position clear. We would like to see a move to shorter terms but, given the fact that businesses have been told that a 60-day limit will be implemented and have begun to prepare for that, that is what we plan to support. For that reason, I cannot support my noble friend’s Amendment 2. Although a shorter payment term is desirable, it would currently be too much of a jump to reduce this to 30 days immediately. The impact assessment suggests that the difference between SMEs using 60-day and 45-day payment terms is roughly 360,000 businesses. I suspect that this number would be significantly larger for those using 30-day terms. These businesses need time to transition, which is why I support the principle behind Amendment 11 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would require the transition to a 45-day term over a five-year period.

We can debate the exact number of days and the length of the transition period, but I expect that we all want this to move in the same direction. For that reason, I hope the Minister can commit to, at a minimum, reviewing the length of private sector payment terms over a set number of years.

Amendments 3, 5 and 25 in my name all probe the same point. What is the status of a payment that is delayed past the maximum threshold, not due to a fault of the purchaser? My amendments offer two examples. First, it is not uncommon for businesses to make their payment runs at the end of the month. These are often then processed over the next few working days, meaning that they are received several days after month end. This is a scenario that Amendments 3 and 5 account for. We do not want to see the payment terms increased, but we also do not want businesses sacrificing efficiency and shunning payment runs because there is a chance that banks will be slow in processing them and the purchaser will be charged interest. Can the Minister confirm that interest will not apply in such cases? Amendment 25 offers another example: that of delays due to public holidays. Can the Minister also assure the Committee that such delays pushing payments over the 30 or 60-day period will not be subject to statutory interest?

Amendments 4 and 8 are also in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Leigh of Hurley. They seek to probe the status of nationalised bodies simply to seek clarification as to which entity status they will fall under—private or public bodies. Given the pertinence of British Steel, and potentially now Thames Water and whichever other companies the new Prime Minister takes a disliking to, I hope the Minister can provide an answer at the Dispatch Box today.

Speaking of Thames Water, Amendments 42, 43 and 100 raise an issue regarding businesses placed under special administration regimes and similar statutory moratoria. I very much thank the Lanes Group for highlighting this for us. Supply made after a special administrator’s appointment is ordinarily payable as an expense, but no provision currently requires payment within any defined period. Suppliers to SA regimes cannot terminate for the insolvency and cannot make continued supply conditional on payment of arrears, so it is unclear whether the payment terms in the Bill survive such a moratorium. Amendment 42 would ensure that such provisions continue past entering administration.

Amendment 43 is based on much the same premise: suppliers cannot make continued supply conditional on the payment of arrears, and payment protection under the Insolvency Act 1986 applies only prospectively. This amendment would ensure that the receivable’s ability to withdraw supply is once again protected. The sums owed would be restricted to undisputed sums and could be subject to caps and eligibility limits set by regulations.

Amendment 100 would require a review of this process as a whole. It is apt, when we have been considering the nationalisation of certain companies and will soon be considering placing others under special administration, that there should be a review of how associated businesses are impacted by these measures and how the system operates as a whole. I hope the Minister agrees that now is a good time to undertake such a review.

Finally, Amendment 51 would prevent a party to a contract forcing another party to use payment methods other than those that are contractually specified. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has done much to highlight this, but we do not want to see smaller businesses bullied into using cryptocurrency—the example that my noble friend gave—just because it suits a larger business partner. I hope the Minister will agree with this and the many other points raised.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Your Lordships have shown a degree of creativity on this group. We have talked about end-of-month processing, public holidays and the effect on privatisation, nationalisation or special administration, and we have just heard about crypto payments. Of those four, I ask that the Minister focuses first on the special administration point made by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Sharpe. I think we will be moving into that very quickly, so I urge some action. The two issues that we have talked about more are the maximum time and stage payments.

When I was in my first proper job, I was sent to the national oil company of a very hot foreign country to try to get paid. At that time, the days receivable was 645—and I failed. In that context, a 60-day maximum looks like a step forward. But, on the point that my noble friend Lady Bowles made, if it actually sticks to 60 days, small companies would really be subsidising the free cash or cash flow of their customers. That is why Amendment 52 seeks to put on statute a way of materially helping small businesses where cash flow is an existential concern. My noble friend set that out with her usual precision, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

On the 60-day limit, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his encouragement of my Amendment 11. What I have tried to do with that is to square the circle. As the noble Lord set out, businesses are set up for a 60-day limit at the moment; however, much of the consultation process proposed a 45-day limit, which goes much further than 60 days. We have heard various arguments in either direction. My Amendment 11 is a way of pointing to a direction of travel and putting down a marker. I am very happy to discuss different ways of doing that. It would require the Secretary of State, within five years, either to lay draft legislation reducing the maximum period from 60 to 45 days or to explain to Parliament why it is not 45 days. That would make it very clear to business and all sides of the supply chain where this is headed. Some of the technology about which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked very eloquently will then be in place, and rapid payments will be available. So I think there are some important bones for the Minister to pick through in this group.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and amendments in this group. The Government share the objective of fair payment rules and are committed to ensuring that businesses, especially SMEs, are paid promptly. The 60-day period was set following extensive consultation with industry, with more than 850 responses across all sectors and business sizes. The Government consider the 60-day cap to be a balanced and proportionate approach.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, there is no reason why businesses cannot pay before 60 days and I think most do. I am sure that noble Lords here who have businesses pay much earlier than 30 days; the Department for Business and Trade—now called the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade—pays 99% of its bills within 30 days. We are trying to encourage behavioural and cultural change, and 60 days is a maximum. I am sure that most businesses pay within that period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will now introduce government amendments in my name. Turning first to the amendments to the Procurement Act 2023, I hope noble Lords across the Chamber will agree that the Government and the wider public sector must set a good standard for good payment practice. If we expect businesses to pay promptly and fairly, public authorities must lead by example. The Government’s clear policy is that, in contracts where a public authority is a purchaser, payment terms should not exceed 30 days. That is already reflected in Cabinet Office guidance, but the current wording of the Procurement Act 2023 could allow an invoice to provide for a later date for payment. This could enable contracting authorities to agree a due date that results in a payment term longer than the 30 days intended by the Bill. While we do not believe that this is happening in practice, these amendments bring the Procurement Act 2023 more into line with the Bill and require payments made by public authorities to be made within 30 days of the receipt of an invoice by them. These amendments also ensure that all those subcontracting within public procurement supply chains, including regulated below-threshold contracts and related subcontracts, are subject to the same 30-day payment terms. The amendments also make minor consequential changes to other provisions of the Bill for the purposes of consistency and clarity.

These amendments also provide specific provisions within the Procurement Act 2023 for public construction contracts. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill already aligns late payment policy, including maximum payment terms, with the construction industry’s established statutory payment regime and specific terminology under Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, which I shall now refer to as the construction Act. It is therefore appropriate to also align public construction contracts to ensure consistency between the legislative regimes of the construction Act, the Procurement Act and the Bill. Corresponding amendments are also made to the Construction Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

Construction contracts subject to the Procurement Act payment terms have an implied maximum payment term of 30 days. However, currently, there is no explicit reference to the payment notice system or payment triggers for construction contracts under the construction Act within this legislation. It is therefore currently unclear on the trigger points for the maximum payment terms and on how implied payment terms from the Procurement Act interact with the scheme for construction contracts. The intended amendments will set this maximum payment term at 30 days from the due date to the final date for payment. In the rare occurrence that the payment term is not provided or a contract term allows for a payment later than the permitted period, the maximum implied period of 30 days would apply. This will provide clarity for construction contracting parties in relation to payment terms within construction contracts or subcontracts that are subject to the Procurement Act and ensure maximum payment terms of 30 days for construction contracts where a public authority is the client.

Finally, I turn to the five amendments concerning provisions relating to the Small Business Commissioner. All five are minor and technical amendments that clarify drafting and ensure consistency of approach. The amendments support the legislation’s overall objective, which is to provide a clear, practical and enforceable regime that strengthens payment discipline, improves suppliers’ confidence and ensures that smaller businesses are not left to bear the cost of poor payment practices.

Taken together, these government amendments do three things: they reinforce the 30-day standard for public contracts, provide clarity for public construction contracts, and ensure that the Small Business Commissioner provisions work as intended. They are therefore targeted, practical and consistent with the central purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his clear exposition of his collection of amendments. This might seem like a lot of government amendments to those who are not veterans of the previous Parliament, but I remember when the noble Lord, Lord True, brought 250 amendments on the first day in Committee on the Procurement Bill, so this rather pales into insignificance. However, it begs the question: at what point did it dawn on the Government that they needed to align across the legislative process? That strikes me as something that should have been in the original document. I am glad that we have caught it, but it seems to be a problem that we did not get it in there earlier. It all seems sensible, as far as I can see. I had to go back over the horrors of the Procurement Bill and reread bits of it, so reliving those moments all over again, but from our perspective, this seems to be okay.

On Amendment 77, I offer my support for the legislative back-up for the Small Business Commissioner to exercise the right to recover costs. I would have hoped that this was there anyway, but it is good to have the legislative back-up. Similarly, Amendment 82 will enable the Government to leverage the practical experience of the Small Business Commissioner. I would have hoped that the Government would have been leveraging the experience of the SBC, but again, this dots an “i” and crosses a “t”. From these Benches, we are happy to accept the Government’s amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am also grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive explanation. I am pleased that this tidying-up exercise, if you will, around existing legislation is happening, because that forms the basis of all the amendments in the group that we are about to debate, which are all mine, which I am now very confident the Minister will accept.

I have two brief questions. New Section 68B, to be inserted by Amendment 41, provides for an appropriate authority to make regulations altering the maximum payment term. It would be useful to know why the Government believe that power to be necessary and in which circumstances they might use that power.

I have further questions about Amendment 102, which permits the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make consequential amendments by regulations, as well as the Secretary of State. For what purpose have the Government made that amendment? Why does the Cabinet Office need to be able to make such amendments? Is it not sufficient for the Secretary of State at the department for business and whatever else it is called these days to make such regulations? I will be grateful to the Minister for answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I ask the Minister to go back and have another look at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, because there are vague stirrings in the back of my mind that there is a point there. It might be worth finding out why it was put in in the first place.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe, having signed all the amendments in his name. There are two key principles at stake here, as he eloquently set out: first, not to introduce yet another definition and, secondly, to take the opportunity to bring some clarity, consistency and coherence of definition. This would not just be beneficial for this Bill but have benefits far beyond it. As he rightly set out, this Bill may not be the place for that second objective. It is obviously the place for the first but, if it is not the place for the second, it would certainly seem to provide the right level of focus and spotlight to enable the department to look at this and bring forward plans to have definitions and classifications that are clear and consistent but also provide what anybody in whatever size of business they are involved with needs. So those definitions are useful.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, brought up a number of important issues, but I do not think he brought up any viable solutions. He spoke at the beginning about the proliferation of definitions, then sought to add to that proliferation with some new definitions.

He is right that some level of consistency should be required. For the purposes of this Bill, that consistency has to come from the purchasing Act 2023, unless that is not available. However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is that there should be a more concerted effort in another place to get meaningful definitions of business sizes. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made a point on the ease of determining those definitions. As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, will know, I am always keen to have a look at Companies House and see how it is doing. It has an important role in a number of different areas; this is just one. A progress report on Companies House when we get back would not be amiss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the excellent and eloquent way in which he introduced his amendment, which I was delighted to sign. As he rightly pointed out, this could be seen as the absolute premier DBIST amendment. It goes to the heart of what the department is. It has business and innovation at its very heart, and it would make complete sense for the department to pass it before Ministers have even changed the stationery in their various departmental boxes.

It was a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord as he chaired the Special Public Bill Committee on the then Electronic Trade Documents Bill. I variously described the Bill as

“the most important Bill that no one has ever heard of”.—[Official Report, 19/7/23; col. 2326.]

and the blockchain Bill that rightly never mentions blockchain. It was perfect in its two-page shortness—perfect, in that it never mentioned any specific technology. It merely set out criteria that any technology would have to meet to perfect an electronic trade document. When we talk about electronic trade documents, we are talking about economic, environmental and social benefits and, for the purposes of this Bill, payments efficiency and payments benefits.

The ability to combine everything in an electronic digital format is possible only because of the criteria that blockchain and distributed ledger technology allows to have a possessory document—that is, if you hold the document, you hold the goods. Only through those technologies is it possible to thus have those possessory documents in electronic form. This would be good for payment but it would also be good for UK trade. There is currently a huge trade finance deficit painfully suffered by many businesses already involved in trade but, perhaps even more significantly, by all those tens of thousands of businesses that currently do not trade internationally but could. The provisions in this amendment really highlight that opportunity.

As the amendment so clearly sets out, international trade should be within the purview of this Bill and, in many ways, this lays the groundwork for many of the technology amendments which we will come to later this evening. It makes the point about what is possible today without insisting that it has to be used and come into force on the date the statute comes into force. By being in the statute, with the time period as set out in the amendment, it states the case clearly. It provides the time for adoption but really speaks to the possibility and, largely, the economic opportunities for all those businesses, particularly small and micro-businesses, which could avail themselves of all the benefits of international trade.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, this would seem to be the perfect amendment for the Minister to accept. As pointed out, it signals an innovative forward direction for the new department, it utilises complex legislation that has already happened, it does not cost anything, and nothing will happen for two years—perfect.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for introducing his amendment. I cannot really improve on what has already been said, except to say that this issue has been raised with His Majesty’s Opposition in the run-up to this Committee stage. It is right that, should technology permit it, import and export trade contracts should be treated the same as domestic documents. That may not be feasible now, but the noble and learned Lord’s amendment provides what seems to me a reasonable timeline to get to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)]

After Clause 8, I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to move Amendment 37.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 37 is in my name. This amendment would confirm on the face of the Bill that the Act does not apply to contracts principally for the licence or assignment of copyright—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)]

With apologies to the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I omitted to have Clause 8 agreed. The Question is that Clause 8 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

37: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Agreements relating to copyright and other intellectual propertyAfter section 15A of the CPILPA 1998 insert—“15B Agreements relating to copyright etc.(1) The provisions in Part 1A, Part 1B, section 4, section 6A, section 11A and section 15A do not apply to a contract that is, or is principally, for—(a) the licence or assignment of, or(b) the grant of any other right in or in relation to,copyright or rights in performances.(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the work or other subject-matter to which the rights relate is in existence when the contract is entered into, and accordingly applies to a contract under which the supplier is to create, write or otherwise produce that work or subject-matter. (3) A contract is not prevented from falling within subsection (1) by reason only that it also requires the supplier to do one or more things in connection with the work or other subject-matter, including to deliver, check, edit or revise it, to review proofs, to engage in relation to its design or packaging, or to undertake promotional or similar activities.(4) Accordingly, no royalty, advance on royalties, residual or other payment under a contract within subsection (1) is a relevant payment or a qualifying debt for the purposes of this Act.(5) In this section “rights in performances” has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confirm on the face of the Act that the Act does not apply to contracts principally for the licence or assignment of copyright or rights in performances, so that royalties, advances and residuals under publishing, music, screen and similar agreements fall outside the late payment regime.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Fortunately, this is a short speech so I can lengthen it by repeating that.

This amendment would confirm on the face of the Bill

“that the Act does not apply to contracts principally for the licence or assignment of copyright or rights in performances, so that royalties, advances and residuals under publishing, music, screen and similar agreements fall outside the late payment regime”

as envisioned by the Bill. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that this amendment has been supported by Creative UK, PRS for Music, which is UK Music, and the Publishers Association. It would insert a new clause after Clause 8—which we have now agreed—and seeks to make a clear distinction between contractual remuneration and royalties.

I know that the Minister has been in discussion with the publishing industry and that, given his business background, he is clear on this issue. However, I do not think the Bill is as clear as the Minister is on this, so it would be very helpful for him to set out in detail these distinctions, effectively putting royalties outside the scope of the Bill. I would prefer an agreed amendment to come forward on Report but, at the very least, some clear Pepper v Hart-style assurances need to be made from the Dispatch Box. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for tabling Amendment 37, which seeks clarity on this important issue. As he explained, this amendment would confirm in the Bill that the Act-to-be

“does not apply to contracts principally for the licence or assignment of copyright or rights in performances, so that royalties, advances and residuals under publishing, music, screen and similar agreements fall outside the late payment regime”.

But it also opens the debate to raise some interesting questions on whether the Bill should be sector-indiscriminate or whether there are certain industries for which regulations regarding late payment must be more bespoke. There may be strong reasons for stipulating that publishing, music and screen agreements fall outside the late payment regime. We look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s position on that specific question.

However, if that is the case, noble Lords must ask two questions: first, whether these reasons could equally apply to other industries that should therefore also be exempted; and, secondly, whether there exist other distinct but legitimate reasons for different industries to be exempted. Even if there are good reasons for exempting certain industries, we must be wary of opening the floodgates such that this late payment regulation loses its practical force. Again, we all look forward to hearing the Minister detail the Government’s stance on this important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As far as the Bill is concerned, we are not providing any particular exemption to any particular sector. As far as intellectual property law is concerned, there were concerns from the various trade organisations that the Bill may also include the licensing of copyright. That is not the case, because that has been decided by case law under the earlier legislation I mentioned. If a contract says that someone has been contracted to write a particular book, novel or whatever, then that falls within scope of the Bill, but copyright contracts do not.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I should have said that my wife is a published author, so I have some family interest in this. Following the Minister’s last statement, I am still not clear on this. As the Minister knows, a classic book contract often involves an advance followed by royalties. The advance is sometimes an actual payment, or it is an advance against royalties. It is not clear which of those three conditions fit into the Bill and which do not. I do not know whether it is in order for the Minister to answer that question now, or whether he will have to come back.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will quickly answer that. If the contract is for a book, and, as part of the contract, the creator is advanced a sum of money with an additional royalty arrangement, then the contract for that sum of money is covered within the scope of the Bill. The payment of copyright is outside the scope of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

That is clearer. I will climb through the words we have exchanged as a result of this debate and see whether any comeback is required on Report. Pending that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for speaking in this debate and introducing his amendments. Banning retention payments is one of the key changes that this Bill will introduce, but it is also one of the most contested, so I will begin by outlining our general position on these Benches.

We do not in principle oppose this step by the Government. To outline the scale of this issue, which I am sure the Minister will reiterate: 65% of retentions are not released on time and 20% are never recovered. Estimates of retentions lost due to insolvencies range from £0.25 billion to over £1 billion, and one need only look at the scale of the Carillion collapse to see that this is unsustainable. But, past the losses, retentions have been used for means other than what they were intended for. They are now widely used to retain cash flow and, in doing so, they transfer risk and reduce the margins of smaller subcontractors. So change is evidently needed.

While we therefore support the Government, we still must not lose sight of the intended use of retentions. They are supposed to act as insurance against defective work. If they are to be scrapped, we think that something must replace them. As my noble friend Lord Lansley argued persuasively, they provide qualitative assurance. I appreciate that the Government are discussing this with industry and that that they expect the market to find a suitable alternative, but some clarity about what they have in mind would be helpful.

Amendments 46 and 49, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt, seek to probe two potential alternatives: escrow and staging payments. Most importantly, the Government’s consultation on retention suggested a ban or something very similar to an escrow-type arrangement. Given that they went with the former, can the Minister confirm today at the Dispatch Box that escrows will not be banned by the backdoor?

Amendment 47, also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt, seeks to probe what the Government are doing to speed up their own transition away from retention payments. Public contracts make up roughly one-third of withheld retention payments, so it is only right that the Government lead from the front and demonstrate that they are driving this change.

Amendment 50 would exempt resident-run and resident-owned property companies from the ban on retention payments. I hope the Minister can confirm that this is already the case, but it is worth reiterating that residents should not fall under this ban on specific construction contracts.

I understand the principle behind the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. On Amendment 44, I will, however, make the same argument my noble friend made earlier about exempting SMEs from payment terms. Just because a small business is more vulnerable to retention payments, it does not follow that there is no risk involved for other businesses. We are therefore not in favour of specific commercial exemptions.

I am sympathetic to Amendment 48, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say regarding alternatives before we consider watered-down forms of amendments. I hope that he will confirm in his reply that serious alternatives are being considered and that they are sufficient.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has said in the past that there may be other means to ensure the necessary delivery of projects without retention, and this group is designed to probe those other means. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who set out the reasons why we too support the need for change, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who points out the need for ensuring quality of delivery. It is a difficult conundrum that faces the Minister.

Amendment 46, from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Sharpe and Lord Holmes, sets out the possibility of escrow and whether that remains legal. I would add bonds and insurance solutions, which may be solutions to a similar delivery problem, or the nature of certification, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made. Either way, there is an issue around staging payments, which we see in Amendment 49 and discussed in a different vein in Amendment 52 from my noble friend. There comes a point when we have to ask: when is a staging payment a retention and when is it not? We start to have this grey area.

The Minister has a difficult job, but it is an important part of the Bill to get that right. Like other noble Lords, we are available to have those discussions, but, when we get to Report, there needs to be a way of squaring the issue of the abuse of retention with the need for delivery.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords for their amendments in this group and for their contributions.

Taking Amendment 46 first, I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, that the Bill does not prevent parties in any sector, including construction, making use of payment arrangements through third-party providers. A business may use a bank, payment agent or escrow account or provider to facilitate the transfer of funds from one party to another. Such arrangements can, in some circumstances, support better cash flow management, provide greater transparency and give parties additional confidence in how funds are handled. Nothing in the Bill is intended to prevent the use of those legitimate payment mechanisms. Therefore, Amendment 46 is unnecessary, but I shall make a further point, if I may.

As drafted, this amendment risks unintentionally undermining the policy intent behind the proposed ban on retentions. Its practical effect could be to preserve the option of still using retention clauses, provided that the retained sums are held by third parties. That would run counter to the Bill’s purpose. Retentions have been used in the construction sector for well over a century, but the evidence from consultation, research and engagement with businesses is clear: retentions are neither an effective way to prevent defects or to remedy poor-quality work. In practice, retentions often reduce cash flow for contractors and subcontractors, increase financial risks across the supply chain, and leave businesses exposed to late and non-payment or to the loss of retained sums through insolvency. The Government’s view is that the industry must now move beyond reliance on retentions. Therefore, we are not proposing any exceptions to the ban, nor do we want to permit retention practices to continue in another form.

I recognise the intent behind Amendment 47. The public sector is a major construction client and there is a strong case for it to lead by example. Phasing out retentions in public construction contracts will send a powerful signal, help establish new standards and support a fairer payment environment for smaller businesses. The Government recognise that the public sector has an important leadership role, but we must also recognise the practical realities that construction clients face, whether public or private.

The Bill reflects typical project durations, existing contractual arrangements and the time required for businesses to adjust their commercial models. During the transition period, the Government will work with industry through the Construction Leadership Council and with clients across the public and private sectors, the financial services sector and the supply chain. The purpose of that work will be to improve quality, reduce the level of defects, and help the market to develop alternative forms of surety for clients and the supply chain, whether it is performance bonds or other forms of financial instruments. That is the right way to achieve lasting reform. It gives the sector a clear end point and a realistic path to get there.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendments 44, 45 and 48, and for his constructive engagement with the Bill. I fully understand the concern underlying these amendments. Everyone in your Lordships’ House wants construction work delivered to a high standard. Everyone agrees that defects should be remedied by the party responsible for them. The question is not whether quality matters—it clearly does—but whether cash retentions are the appropriate way to secure that outcome. The Government’s answer is clear: they are not. These amendments would create wide-ranging exemptions from the Bill’s retention provisions. Their practical effect would be to remove or significantly reduce the protection that the Bill is intended to provide for many businesses in the construction supply chain. That would be a serious step backwards. It is designed to protect cash flow, reduce exposure to insolvency risks and end the long-standing practice of withholding money already earned.

If these exemptions are accepted, many of the risks that the Bill aims to address would remain. Businesses would still experience reduced cash flow, retained sums would still be vulnerable to late release, non-payment and loss through insolvency, and clients would still have to incentivise to preserve mechanisms that reduce payments to suppliers rather than adopt better ways of managing quality and defects. That would undermine one of the Bill’s central purposes. If we create broad exemptions now, we risk preserving the very practices that have held us back for so long.

It is important to recall the evidence from the 2018 consultation conducted by the previous Government. Contractors reported significant difficulties in obtaining the release of the second half of the retention at the end of the defects period. The final retention payment was often used as leverage in negotiations over the final amount. That experience demonstrates why seemingly limited retention arrangements can become a source of real commercial pressure. There is also the possibility that if exemptions are introduced, clients might try to extend defects periods beyond the usual 12 to 24 months seen in construction contracts, which could extend the timeframe for withholding funds.

The Government fully accept that quality and defects must be addressed. However, the answer is not to continue withholding cash from supply chains but to improve quality, reduce the incidence of defects, and develop fairer and more effective alternatives to retentions. That is the work we intend to take forward with industry throughout the transition period. The Government’s approach therefore strikes the right balance. It offers a clear incentive for essential reforms, it protects smaller businesses from the cash flow and insolvency risks linked to retentions, and it gives the industry time to adapt to a significant and necessary change.

In relation to Amendment 49, I reassure noble Lords that no provision in the Bill will change the ability of construction clients and firms to agree either staged or interim payments under construction contracts. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary.

We understand the intention behind Amendment 50, that resident-owned firms undertaking essential remediation work can ensure that the work done is of high quality, but we do not believe that retention ensures this. As Dame Judith Hackitt has noted, the practice is ineffective and undermines the effectiveness of the supply chain, which is why alternatives are required.

Let me respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the new homes ombudsman scheme and the code of practice. The Government have already stated their intention to bring forward a statutory new homes ombudsman scheme. Requirements are being developed and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government may undertake market engagement to assist in further developing this. This would be done transparently via government portals.

With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we now move to a very important part of the Bill, namely Part 2, on the Small Business Commissioner. I praise all those involved in the build-up to the Enterprise Act 2016. After a lengthy period of consultation, in which I was privileged to participate, the Conservative Government set up the role of the Small Business Commissioner. Its purpose was to tackle overdue payments and unfavourable payment practices. So it is a pleasure to open this debate by moving Amendment 55 and speaking to the others in this group in my name and that of my noble friend, because we now seek to expand the role of the Small Business Commissioner. I am pleased to start by saying that His Majesty’s Opposition support these changes. Our many amendments to this group are simply to clarify or build on the Government’s already solid proposals.

Amendments 55 to 57 probe the reasoning behind limiting the scope of the commissioner’s powers to disputes between small and larger businesses. I understand the argument that small businesses or consumers are more likely to be bankrupted by dispute proceedings, but the same cannot be said of small businesses on the receiving end of poor payment practices. I wonder whether the Minister can outline the rationale for expanding the commissioner’s powers to include these size-adjacent disputes.

Amendments 64 and 65 probe what additional grounds may be included in the reasons for declining to adjudicate disputes and which additional disputes may be exempted from adjudication. These powers have the potential to be used both widely and arbitrarily, which is why we have tabled Amendment 72, which would require both Houses of Parliament to approve any new regulations. In general, if the Minister could anticipate what these powers might be used for, I think we would all find that extremely helpful.

Similarly, Amendment 62 from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley would require a reason to be given for declining to adjudicate a dispute. I think this is a courteous, low-cost measure that would do much to increase the transparency of the commissioner’s office.

Amendment 71 in my name and Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, aim to set a timeline for resolving disputes. I am conscious that the cases brought to the commissioner may differ greatly, both in scope and resolution and in the amount of time required. As such, I am aware that any timeline could create a bottleneck. That being said, I believe that some expectation should be placed on the commissioner’s office to resolve disputes in a timely manner. So, if the Minister cannot agree with either of these terms, I hope he will be able at least to suggest another solution in his response.

I also consider Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh, to be very important. Currently, under the Bill, a larger business may be investigated should it persistently engage in poor payment practices, with “persistently” being defined as an equally vague “sufficient” number of times. Businesses deserve to know what this means, if for no other reason than so that they can avoid it. Discretion should not be introduced where it does not need to be, so I hope the Minister can put a number on what exactly constitutes “persistently”.

However, these amendments are ultimately fruitless if they are not taken in conjunction with Amendments 69 and 93. The amendments in this group aim to increase the efficiency and transparency of the Small Business Commissioner’s office, which is now rightly having its powers greatly expanded—though the funds and resources the office will receive to carry them out remain very vague and opaque, so we seek more clarity from the Minister. Last year, the Small Business Commissioner had a net operating expenditure of just under £1.1 million. It was not allowed to hire permanent staff members and handled a total of 591 inquiries—not disputes.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that extra resources will still be available, as he did at Second Reading, but not to give any further details. The time has come when we need to have a very clear steer on exactly what this budget will include and amount to. This is a root and branch reform that will not just completely change the nature of the commissioner’s office but have ramifications for businesses up and down the country. It must have a clear funding plan laid out. That is why we support Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It would ensure that the commissioner’s new functions would not be commenced until a funding plan has been laid before and debated by Parliament. This is the bare minimum, surely, for a reform of this kind.

Both the commissioner’s office and the businesses that will rely on it need to know that they will be adequately provided for. One cannot instil institutional trust in a reform if it appears that it is being underfunded. I hope the Minister can now commit to a funding plan. If there is no clear plan, neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will be satisfied and we will return to the matter on Report. The Minister has a real opportunity now to answer all these questions; let us get ahead with this very important reform. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, given his continued involvement with the Small Business Commissioner. There are a lot of amendments in this group. In order not to overstay my welcome, I will not speak to his amendments—but I am broadly in agreement with everything he has just said.

I have a number of amendments in this group. Amendment 59 would require payment disputes referred to the adjudication scheme to be resolved within 60 days, unless the Small Business Commissioner considers a longer period reasonable. The Bill creates a 60-day limit by which private organisations must pay back small businesses. However, although in the case of a dispute there is a time limit for the dispute to be raised, there is no time limit for the case to be resolved. This means that large companies could in effect raise a dispute and delay resolution, putting pressure on the SMEs to settle.

As can be seen from the amendment, it calls for the adjudicator to

“reach a decision determining a relevant payment dispute before the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the dispute is referred to adjudication under the scheme”.

To facilitate this, the adjudicator must

“compel parties to share relevant information with itself, if the sharing of such information is necessary for the fulfilment of the duty”.

However, where necessary, the commissioner may extend the period to resolve a particular issue, having regard to the complexity of a dispute and the conduct of the parties. The commissioner must set out reasons for any extension. This amendment addresses this, and it is an issue to which we attach quite a lot of importance.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just said, Amendment 71 looks at a 28-day limit. Separately, Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, looks at 12 months for an investigation. That is a very long time, but I look forward to what he has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for tabling Amendments 88 to 91, which would amend the maximum penalty for breaching payment reporting requirements by providing for it to be calculated based on a company’s global turnover, as well as the turnover of any parent or subsidiary company, rather than the company’s UK turnover. I reassure him that our intention is for fines to be substantial, while also being proportionate and reasonable. Financial penalties should be linked to the UK economic activity of the qualifying company that is responsible for the breach, rather than that of overseas or other connected businesses that are not subject to the reporting requirements. Further details on how turnover will be determined will be set out in regulations following consultation. With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I found his answer on Amendment 91 a bit disappointing, given that we went through the debate on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act and came to a different conclusion. It is not clear to me why, in this circumstance, the Government go one way when, with that Act, we went the other way. A conversation needs to be had about that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I would be happy to follow that up in a further conversation with the noble Lord. I take his point, but we also need to be mindful that there are so many different structures in which a company can operate—a subsidiary here, a domain for UK purposes and so on. Nevertheless, I agree that we need to be very clear about what constitutes a UK trading company and what revenue should be taken into account. I welcome additional engagement with him.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am sorry to labour the point, but that use of structures is exactly what my amendment seeks to avoid, because it is through those structures that clever companies with very good corporate lawyers can remove profit that has been generated in this country and attribute it to other subsidiaries that are not in this country and would therefore not be subject to the calculation for fines. That is why we made that decision for the digital markets Act and why I propose that we should do the same in this one.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As I said earlier, we need to have further conversations on that, which I would welcome.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in what has been a very important debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I warmly applaud what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said about the critical need for clarity—as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond emphasised, not just clarity but precision. We believe that these elements are essential, particularly on resources. It is all well and good passing legislation—ground-breaking legislation, to some extent—but, if there are no resources behind that change in legislative structures, the ultimate objective will not be achieved.

Speaking on behalf of all those who have spoken, I believe that it is the intention of all of us that the expanded Small Business Commissioner’s office should work as the Government intend it to work. The amendments in this group simply represent different views on how best to achieve this. I warmly applaud my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who always gives us the correct feedback from the world of business. He did so again just a few moments ago. His remarks about giving the cold shoulder have been proved with the effectiveness of the takeover code. We have to isolate—perhaps we have not had enough discussion about this—those companies that have poor payment practices and get through to them that, across all parties, we condemn such action, in particular when it has such a dramatic impact on small and medium-sized enterprises.

I understand that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would include overseas turnover when calculating a company’s turnover. We need to discuss that further. We need to get UK tax law right.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Simple—have a flat tax.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Anyway, that is a debate for another occasion.

The Committee has made it clear that we support the prohibition of new regulations without what they might be used for being outlined or without them being approved by both Houses of Parliament. I have also set out our position on the timeline for the adjudication of disputes. It is an argument that I believe has some merit and would benefit from at least some guidance from the Minister, but I warmly applaud the consensus across the Committee that the question of funding must be answered before the Bill passes. As I outlined at the start of this debate, businesses must be able to trust the office for it to function as intended, and trust includes knowing that it has the means to deal with the disputes with which it has been tasked by this legislation. I understand that the Minister cannot commit today to a set amount or a timeline, but I hope that, over the summer, he and his officials will come to a solution on this issue—perhaps with the support of a rejuvenated Treasury.

I look forward to revisiting this debate. On behalf of all those who are interested, I accept the Minister’s offer of a meeting with the Small Business Commissioner and her team, which I think would greatly enhance our ability to understand some of the issues involved. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I make one brief observation on Amendment 83. When one looks back at the last group of amendments and at this one, one sees that what is happening, in effect, is the creation of an entirely alternate system of dispute resolution—a new form of court or adjudication procedure. It is also apparent from the focus of the debate that this is not easy legislation to follow. I therefore think that, if one is to provide access to justice—that justice now being provided by the Small Business Commissioner—we must put the rights into ordinary language.

As experience showed in the 19th century, when the county courts were created—which had the same idea as all this—once you let lawyers in, you destroy them. It is imperative that lawyers do not become involved because it will destroy the system. It destroyed the county courts and it destroyed workmen’s compensation. Tribunals were created to get away from the lawyers. I will come back to this in a further amendment, but the key is to make procedure and law accessible without lawyers, or this system will not work.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

A lawyer steps up.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Declare yourself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I have one or two brief observations in support of the amendments, particularly Amendments 73 and 78 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. First, it is critical that people are given an easy understanding of digital access to the system, but that is said in the context of the more important Amendment 78. I may have been slightly tendentious in what I said about getting lawyers out of the system, but we are likely to see much more being done in the system by artificial intelligence. At the moment, there is not a lot of public confidence in decisions on adjudication, on what are likely to be relatively simple things, being done by machine. However, that is coming. Worldwide—and I really mean worldwide—the courts are very concerned to look at the use of AI in being able to make decisions on a lot of areas.

But it is no use going down that route if there is not the public confidence, and that is why I think Amendment 78 is very important. Unless you are prepared to explain to the public what you are doing and how this is reliable, you will not get there. But I have absolutely no doubt that we are going that way. From looking at what is happening, a little bit in this country but much more elsewhere, we are into the route of AI being used to put arguments to the adjudicator, to respond to them and to distil the arguments into decision-making. It may be that this will produce the return to 1846—that is, the County Courts Act, which was meant to do what this Bill is trying to do now.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments are very much of the style that I had expected, knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, was involved in the Bill, and he certainly made his arguments. To some extent I think there is a mixed thing here, with some of it mandating tools that the SBC could or should use. I do not think we need primary legislation to mandate that at all. I think the point that the noble and learned Lord made on Amendment 78 was slightly different from the one that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made. I may have misunderstood. But it is very important to know where AI is being used for decision-making and resolution. I think that was the point that the noble and learned Lord was making, and there I have complete agreement.

The use of distributed ledger is probably a very good idea. Do we need primary legislation to make or advise the SBC to use it? I am not sure. There is a mixed bag here, but the important element is that technology will change how the commissioner will approach her job and she needs to be financially and technically resourced in order to be able to address those changes and, I hope, to be one step ahead of them.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

We are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, not only for his amendments in this group but for his wise words. I also commend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on their points.

Amendment 73 would require the Small Business Commissioner

“to provide a plain-language digital pathway into the SBC adjudication scheme, including an eligibility checker, interest calculator, and guided referral process”.

I believe there is a lot of common sense behind this amendment, and I suppose I declare an interest having been UK chair of the English-Speaking Union and global chair for a number of years. Placing a statutory duty on the commissioner to provide a digital service would ensure that small businesses could more easily get the essential and relevant information about the scheme. The inclusion of a plain language eligibility checker would mean that small businesses could determine whether they are entitled to refer a relevant payment dispute to the scheme. This would not only benefit the taxpayer, as time and expense will not have to be expended sifting through ineligible applications, but would also benefit small businesses that may otherwise have to spend money on legal fees and advice.

Amendment 78 would establish

“an algorithmic accountability framework for any AI or automated tool used by the Commissioner. It requires transparency, regular bias audits, human oversight, and a right of explanation for businesses selected for investigation”.

There is clear reasoning behind this amendment. If a business is put under investigation, it should be entitled, upon request, to understand the factors that led to the initial decision to investigate. Not only will this provide transparency and act as a safeguard against particular businesses being targeted, it will mean that businesses are able to reflect on their existing practices and amend them as necessary.

I turn to what my noble friend described as one of the most important amendments, Amendment 92, as well as Amendment 94. Amendment 92 would require the Secretary of State

“to commission an AI-assisted payment monitoring tool for the Small Business Commissioner”.

Amendment 94 would require the Secretary of State

“to establish an open, machine-readable register of payment practice reports”.

Both these amendments rest on the principles that technology and data, when used in a constructive way, can yield more effective and efficient outcomes. An AI-assisted payment monitoring tool could be used by the Small Business Commissioner to cross-reference data that companies are required to publish with other government databases to identify businesses whose reported payment performance is incompatible with other available financial and legal data. Such a tool would provide the commissioner with more accurate and robust data, which could be considered before the launching of a potential investigation.

Similarly, an open payment data register would enable analysis by sector, business size and payment performance over time. If this register were publicly accessible and machine readable, third parties would also have the ability to deploy their own large language models to gain insights into the sector, as well as potential businesses that must be referred for investigation. Crucially, by making the register public, large businesses may be further incentivised to ensure that they are complying with existing payment practices and regulations. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters.

Amendment 95 would require

“a pilot of distributed ledger technology for construction retention records during the transition period”,

while Amendment 96 would require

“post-quantum cryptographic standards for all digital infrastructure supporting the Commissioner’s functions”.

These are technical amendments which require careful consideration.

In the absence of a clear cyber strategy, which the Government have promised would be released—they have promised it again and again—it remains unclear how the digital infrastructure supporting the commissioner’s functions remains shielded from cyber threats. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform us all of when such a strategy will be published.

Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to this group on behalf of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who sends his apologies to the House for his absence today. Before I begin, I note my gratitude to the Minister, who has been incredibly receptive in listening to and addressing our concerns with the Bill. I believe that we have ended up broadly in agreement on the final form that the Bill should take, so I commend him and his officials for the cross-party work they have put in.

My noble friend’s two amendments from Committee seek to address three technical matters. Amendment 1 aims to provide the supplier with guidance on how to submit a notice. Amendment 5 seeks to clarify that a payment is defined as such only when the supplier has clear and unequivocal use of funds. Amendment 10 would prevent the import-export exemption being extended past the implementation of the Electronic Trade Documents Act.

As in Committee, we remain broadly supportive of all three amendments. Amendment 1 reflects the fact that good payment practices can be ensured only if both parties are aware of the maximum payment terms and the supplier has submitted a notice in good time. Amendment 10 reflects a much-raised concern that imports and exports are currently exempt from the Bill. The Electronic Trade Documents Act means that this will not have to be the case, so I hope that the Minister can assure us that there are plans for incorporating import and export into the payment regime upon the full enactment of that Act.

Finally, it is a shame to see that the aim behind Amendment 5 has not been accepted by the Government. The Bill aims to improve payment practices between firms, largely because, currently, too many exchanges are delayed at the expense of the supplier. If a payment is made through an intermediary and remains there for an indefinite period—perhaps beyond the 60-day payment term—and does not fall under the provisions of the Bill, the Bill is of little use to the supplier awaiting payment. Amendment 5 would ensure that payments were considered as paid only when they reached their final recipient. That principle was the reason for the Minister rejecting my Amendments 2 and 4 in Committee: that, regardless of delays, payments should count only when received by the supplier. I hope that the Minister can today confirm that this definition will be made explicit in all cases.

I turn to my amendments. Alongside my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I have retabled several probing amendments arising out of concerns about the effects of the maximum payment terms. Amendments 2, 4 and 19 are concerned with payments that are delayed by either bank holidays or bank processing times. Amendment 9 probes the economic and opportunity costs of the exemption of upwards payments from payment term restrictions. Amendments 3 and 6 seek to add a definition of nationalised bodies to the Bill, reflecting the fact that, while they will be treated as regular commercial bodies, their business models are self-evidently different and, as such, there is a risk that their payment practices reflect this. These are all questions that we would benefit from seeing answered; however, that does not detract from the fact that we support the general aim of Part 1.

It is also true that the best way of judging the effectiveness of a policy is through analysing its effects in practice. Therefore, I welcome the compromise that the Government have made with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, giving the Secretary of State the powers to shorten payment terms alongside mandating a consultation about the decision. The proposed new clause under Amendment 15 does not commit the Government to any specific action but simply requires a review of the effects of the maximum payment terms and allows for adjustment if necessary. That is a sound, self-correcting approach and I therefore thank the Minister for agreeing to this measure. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I feel a great wave of consensus flowing over me. I will speak to Amendment 8 in my name. As we discussed before the Recess, much of the consultation process proposed a 45-day limit, yet the Bill offers no easy route from the 60 days it proposes to a shorter timeframe. My amendment would require the Secretary of State, within five years, either to lay draft legislation reducing the maximum payment period for private purchasers from 60 to 45 days, or to explain to Parliament why not.

The Minister’s reaction and response to this issue have been typical of the very strong consensus that we have been able to build. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that both the Minister and his team have been extremely helpful in this. That is why I am delighted to note that government Amendment 15 and the various consequentials lock in very much what I was looking for, including—as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned—the need for consultation within five years, with a view to shortening the payment period. This government amendment is an excellent response to my Amendment 8, thereby making my amendment unneeded.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, prior to introducing the government amendments, I wish to express my personal thanks for the positive engagement across the House, and particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, on the Opposition Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the Liberal Democrats for their very thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill.

The Bill builds upon the important reforms that were enacted by the previous Conservative Government. The provisions in the Bill have been drafted following extensive consultation with businesses, with more than 850 responses to our consultation, which was undertaken between 31 July and 23 October 2025. We have brought forward a Bill that reflects that consultation.

Our decision to impose stricter maximum payment terms of 60 days received support from 66% of consultation respondents. This is a significant strengthening of current law. No longer will large businesses be able to impose payment terms of over 60 days upon their suppliers. The question remains whether 60 days should be the end of that journey. We have heard loud and clear from smaller businesses that the Government should consider reducing maximum payment terms to 45 days or even 30 days. I have listened carefully to all noble Lords across the House encouraging us to go further on this. I am pleased to say that the Government have tabled amendments to provide a power that may be used in future to reduce the maximum payment terms.

These amendments allow the Government to consult on whether payment periods should be reduced, ensuring that any future decisions are informed by evidence and experience of how the new measures are operating in practice. Furthermore, the Government will not use this power to reduce maximum payment terms for at least five years. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible change and a balanced approach, maintaining the payment periods consulted on and included in the Bill, providing stability and certainty while businesses adapt to the new reality of 60-day maximum payment terms, and ensuring that there is a clear route to go further in future if the evidence supports it.

I turn to the amendments tabled by other noble Lords. In response to Amendment 2, increasing the maximum payment term for public authorities beyond 30 days would undermine the Procurement Act 2023 and delay payment to suppliers. In response to Amendment 4, increasing the maximum period for non-public authority purchasers beyond 60 days would delay payments to suppliers and move away from the position consulted upon with strong levels of support.

Regarding Amendments 3 and 6, national ownership does not by itself determine the applicable payment regime. Under the Bill, a nationalised body that meets the definition of a “public authority” will be subject to a 30-day maximum payment period. A nationalised body that does not meet that definition will be subject to the 60-day maximum payment period that applies to other purchasers. I recognise the intention and ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in Amendment 8 to reduce maximum payment terms.

On Amendment 19, the Bill takes important steps by introducing clarity and consistency around payment terms, building on the reforms introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. We are not aware of public holidays being raised as a concern by any businesses or stakeholders during last year’s extensive public consultation.

Amendment 1 is already covered by the Bill. We are setting out clearly the trigger points that can be agreed to start the clock on payment and the implied term if payment is not explicitly made.

Regarding Amendment 5, the Government believe that the Bill is clear. For the purposes of whether a payment has been made on time and when interest on late payment will start, payment will be considered made at the point that funds have been received by the supplier. On both Amendments 1 and 5, the Small Business Commissioner will provide advice and information on compliance with legal obligations on these points. On Amendment 10, I outlined in Committee how the removal of this exemption would place UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

7: Clause 1, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“2CA Payments collected by intermediaries(1) This section applies where, under or in connection with a contract to which section 2B applies (“the supply contract”), a person other than the supplier (“the intermediary”) receives all or part of a relevant payment from the purchaser for onward transmission to the supplier.(2) This section applies regardless of—(a) whether the intermediary acts as agent for the supplier or the purchaser or otherwise, and(b) the legal characterisation of any contract between the intermediary and the supplier or the purchaser.(3) For the purposes of this section, a relevant payment is not to be treated as made to the supplier until the amount received by the intermediary is received by the supplier.(4) It is an implied term of any contract between the intermediary and the supplier that the intermediary must pay to the supplier any amount received from the purchaser in respect of a relevant payment under the supply contract before the end of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the intermediary receives that amount.(5) A term of any contract is void so far as it purports to—(a) provide for payment to the supplier later than is required by subsection (4), or(b) treat a relevant payment as made to the supplier earlier than is provided by subsection (3).(6) Where the intermediary fails to comply with the implied term in subsection (4), the unpaid amount is to be treated as a qualifying debt owed by the intermediary to the supplier for the purposes of this Act (and statutory interest runs accordingly).(7) Subsection (4) does not require the intermediary to pay an amount to the supplier so far as the intermediary is entitled to deduct or withhold that amount under a term of a contract with the supplier that is fair and reasonable having regard to the matters specified in Schedule 2 to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and it is for the intermediary to show that any such term satisfies that test.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment closes the online marketplace loophole by providing that payment is not treated as made to a supplier until the supplier actually receives the money, and by requiring any intermediary that collects payment on a supplier’s behalf to remit it within 7 days regardless of how the intermediary is legally characterised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we all know, economic activity is switching from familiar structures and supply chains to a situation where businesses market their goods or services via third-party online marketplaces or virtual intermediaries. The amendment would bring such marketplaces and intermediaries into the context of the Bill. It would close a loophole by providing that payment is not treated as made to a supplier until the supplier actually receives the money, which seems reasonable, and by requiring any intermediary that collects payment on a supplier’s behalf to pay it within seven days, regardless of how the intermediary is legally characterised. The Minister is Minister for Small Business, and I am sure that very many of the businesses that are now under his purview would agree that their cash flow can be majorly impacted by how quickly these online marketplaces settle.

We have debated the role of online intermediaries in a number of Bills and contexts. For example, we have talked about their role when considering product safety. In every case, the Government—both Governments —have found arguments to eliminate these important businesses and sectors from whatever legislation we have been considering. So it is quite clear that we have to move on from where we are now. We cannot keep exempting what is becoming a major part of our economy from the legislation that we consider. An ever-increasing proportion of the UK economy is shifting in this direction, and we need to grasp the nettle.

At the very least, I am looking for some assurance from the Minister that the Small Business Commissioner, the Government and departments can actually take a look at the role of these businesses in all walks of the economy and find a way of bringing them on board and making sure that they are not a loophole in the laws that the Government are very properly introducing. With that, I beg to move Amendment 7.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment touches on very much the same point as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s Amendment 6 in the first group. The principle that payments should be considered as such only when received by the supplier underpins several of the amendments that we on this side of the House have brought back from Committee. As such, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support this amendment, as we did in Committee. I do not think that a payment should fall under a different regime from direct payments simply because it is made online and happens to travel through an intermediary. Similarly, ensuring the prompt forwarding of payments by intermediaries is an integral part of promoting good payment practices. This amendment aims to do that, and I warmly commend the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I join him in hoping that the Minister can confirm that these issues have been considered and addressed.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for Amendment 7 and thank him for it. I recognise that it was tabled in a constructive spirit, and I thank him once again for the engagement we have had on this matter, both in person and by correspondence. The Government share his aims of ensuring that suppliers are paid promptly, payment processes are clear and purchasers cannot use contractual mechanisms to delay payment unjustly. I entirely agree that, when a small business sells through a platform or marketplace, the money due to that business should not be held unnecessarily.

I want to be absolutely clear that the use of intermediaries does not affect a supplier’s right to be paid within 60 days. Chapter 1 of Part 1 ensures that, for business-to-business contracts for the supply of goods or services, the maximum payment time is 60 days. If payment is more than 60 days overdue, the purchaser is in breach of contract and liable to pay interest. The use of an intermediary does not alter this position.

I reassure all noble Lords that persistent attempts to circumvent the maximum payment terms through intermediaries constitute poor payment practice. Under Clause 19, this constitutes grounds for the Small Business Commissioner to investigate and potentially levy a financial penalty on larger businesses that persistently engage in this practice. Under Clause 18, the commissioner will also be able to adjudicate payment disputes where a larger business owes money to a small business, including where the debt arises from the use of an intermediary.

The Bill addresses late business-to-business payments. It is not intended to regulate broader business relationships such as those between retailers using agents to sell goods to consumers or between a platform or marketplace and others when the platform or marketplace is holding, processing or transmitting funds between them. Those are subject to separate regulation. The contracts through which the majority of small businesses trade on online marketplaces are either business-to-consumer or consumer-to-consumer contracts and are subject to consumer legislation. These contracts were outside the scope of our impact assessment and our public consultation.

As tabled, the amendment would therefore not address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Tackling the issue of late payments outside a business-to-business context would move the Bill into a completely different area of regulation and would require the establishment of a new statutory regime for online marketplaces and payment intermediaries. This would cut across existing legislation, rather than maintaining the Bill’s core focus on commercial payment practices between suppliers and purchasers.

The amendment would also interfere with existing commercial models that operate in the interests of the relevant parties and serve legitimate purpose. For example, where most intermediaries operate a system in which payments are pooled in a small business account and are drawn down by the small business on a regular basis, the amendment would mean that each individual sale, however small, would have to be remitted directly to the small business, significantly increasing transaction numbers and costs and reducing the flexibility of the operating model. Another example is payment providers holding funds for more than seven days to allow for fraud checks or other compliance requirements. The amendment would increase small businesses’ exposure to fraud and undermine the regulatory and legal framework governing payment providers.

However, I understand and share the noble Lord’s concerns about withholding funds from small businesses. I am therefore happy to ask the Small Business Commissioner to review this issue with a view to developing guidance for small businesses so that they understand how the Bill applies to trading activity on online marketplaces. This can build on the guidance that the commissioner produced last year to help small businesses understand why their accounts may be frozen or funds withheld and how they can take action to avoid this. This included a 10-point pledge to online marketplaces and payment providers which was signed and promoted by several major companies. As the Minister for Small Business, I commit to examining how the Government can further support small businesses in addressing this issue faced by those who use online platforms, including engaging with other government departments and regulators where they have responsibility.

For those reasons, and given the commitments that I have made, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to withdraw Amendment 7.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support for this amendment. One point of consternation or otherwise is that I would suggest that the supplier-marketplace relationship is a B2B relationship, not a B2C one. I am not sure where the argument that I am somehow pushing this to a different sort of relationship came from, but I will set that to one side and mull on it later.

I thank the Minister for the latter part of his speech and his undertakings to focus the SBC on this issue and to ensure that his department looks at ways of making sure that small businesses understand their rights. That is really the point. The way in which the first part of his speech was set out made it clear that there are all sorts of rights for small businesses in this, but I am not sure that small businesses are necessarily aware of those rights or how they can go about exercising them and being sure that it is not a time-consuming, overwhelming process. It would be useful to hear from the Minister—and perhaps the Small Business Commissioner, as time goes by—how small businesses will be engaged to make sure that they are fighting on an even footing with the marketplaces, many of which are, let us face it, absolutely huge and very difficult organisations to take on. It can be difficult even to find the right person to speak to in them to start with.

I thank the Minister for the work that he will do in future, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, were right to raise the issue of definitions in Committee. Rather than simply echo them, I decided to add something to the debate through Amendment 35, which sets out something of the Tower of Babel that exists around definitions. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 35 gives examples of the many phrases and words that are used in a variety of different contexts. Proposed new subsection (3) identifies seven Acts—not the six that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, came up with; we managed to find another one—where these phrases are prevalent but not necessarily synonymous. Proposed new subsection (4) really sets out what we are looking for the Minister to do, which is work out to what extent the definitions in proposed new subsection (2) differ from those in subsection (3).

There is a compliance cost to businesses in these differing definitions, because they have to make different decisions for different legislative frameworks. The extent to which this gives rise to uncertainty and undermines the law, and the effect it will have on the functions of the Small Business Commissioner, are just some of the things that should be taken on board by the Government to bring a state of order to what has been an organic process of legislation following legislation and definition following definition. To help the Minister’s new constituency of small businesses in particular, now is the time to bring these things under control and bring definitions into order.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for Amendments 11, 12, 13, 14, 35 and 46. I recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, in Committee regarding the number of existing definitions of company sizes on the statute book and their desire for clear and consistent definitions to avoid confusion for businesses. I would like to reassure noble Lords that our intention is to use the company size thresholds set out in the Companies Act 2006 and the Enterprise Act 2016 as the basis for defining company size in the Bill.

However, it is important that we consult with businesses and industry experts to ensure that these definitions are appropriate for the purposes of this Bill. That consultation may indicate that, for the purposes of the Bill, company-size definitions should be revised or simplified. Any modifications to existing definitions will be made only when necessary.

For example, we may choose to simplify definitions to make it easier for businesses to use exemptions, while still using existing definitions as the basis. We may find through consultation that different parts of the legislation require different definitions to ensure precision and effectiveness. For example, we might be required to simplify the size definitions for the purposes of the Small Business Commissioner’s powers, so that they are based solely on headcount. We should not constrain ourselves by introducing rigid definitions now, as this could make the powers and protections afforded by the Bill more difficult for businesses to understand and administer than is necessary.

I also do not consider it necessary to delay the Bill’s commencement pending a further statutory review of definitions used across a range of legislation. The Government are already committed to consulting on any regulations made under these powers and to taking into account relevant existing definitions when developing them. The delegated power in Section 2E will be subject to consultation and parliamentary approval under the affirmative procedure, giving your Lordships’ House the opportunity to vote on the regulations before they are introduced.

In conclusion, the definition of business sizes will be set out in secondary legislation. These regulations will be informed by consultation to ensure that they are appropriate. The Government intend to use the existing definitions as the basis for this Bill and will keep definitions as simple and effective as possible.

I also commit that, before making any regulations in this area, the Government will have regard to the definitions in the Companies Act 2006, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Enterprise Act 2016. I also commit to meeting up with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to look into these definitions going forward. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that Amendment 11 be withdrawn and that noble Lords do not move the remaining amendments in the group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by reiterating my support for the Government’s position on retention payments. We support the right to the free exchange of goods and services and the right of firms to enter into mutually agreed contracts, but it is also clear that retention payments have become misused and are therefore untenable. Some 65% of retention payments are paid back late, while almost 25% are never paid back at all. They have become a tool for big firms to retain cash flow to prop up other ventures while the supplier, often a smaller firm, suffers as a result.

However, we must not lose sight of retention payments’ original purpose. Retention payments as a concept are wholly justified, in that they offer an insurance against defective or untimely work and incentivise the remedying of that. As I am sure many noble Lords would agree, I would hesitate to commission construction work on a private property if I did not have a way to ensure that it was done to an acceptable standard, and we should not expect firms to be any different. Therefore, some middle ground must be reached.

As in Committee, I have tabled, along with my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, two amendments that propose alternatives to retention payments; namely, escrow and staged payments. I am aware that the Minister has outlined that these would be permissible following the enactment of the Bill, but, as far as I am aware, they are currently a small part of the market share of construction insurance. The primary goal of these amendments is to seek clarity from the Minister on what steps the Government are taking to promote these, and indeed other, alternatives. They are consulting with industry; what conclusions have they reached from those discussions? Which other forms of insurance do the Government deem effective, and how are they acting to promote them? I hope the Minister is able to give some clarity from the Dispatch Box on all those questions.

Amendment 24 would exempt resident-run or resident-owned blocks of flats from falling under the retention ban. The Minister has made it clear that this ban is intended to target commercial contracts rather than those of private citizens. Resident-run properties fall into an odd medium in that they are technically commercial properties, but they are run as if they are private. There is clearly a category issue here. Does the Minister accept that these are not run as commercial properties and, if so, does he have the data in front of him on the scale of this issue and whether the incoming ban will pose a risk to the resident-run property market?

Finally, I will touch on Amendments 25 and 26 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Leigh of Hurley. These amendments seek to prohibit the imposition of requirements from large to small businesses. In particular, we are concerned about the forced use of specific currencies that advantage the larger supplier, or the imposition of ESG requirements that allow the larger business to meet requirements in its annual reports without having to bear any of the costs. Much of the Bill seeks to support small businesses by placing them on an equal footing. It recognises that there is often an asymmetrical relationship between the buyer and the seller when either is larger. Our amendments simply seek to extend that recognition to these two well-known practices. I hope the Minister will agree with me, and I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there are no amendments in my name in this group, but I will speak very briefly on Amendment 24, which, as we heard, seeks to remove the ban on retention, with the very worthy aim of helping ensure that resident-owned or resident-run blocks of homes can police work done on the grounds of safety. On the face of it, that sounds like a worthy idea. I am concerned that it opens a can of worms, and my instinct is that there has to be a better way of ensuring that the work is done properly. Perhaps it is the noble Lord’s idea of escrow, which I believe could, if mutually agreed, be possible.

There is a danger of watering down the retention ban if we were to accept the noble Lord’s ideas. The definition of “safety defect remediation work” could be broad, or it could be very narrow. I have had briefings from a number of different organisations which have been contradictory to each other, so I am passing the buck to the Minister to explain how he is going to solve the very worthy issue that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has identified, which is resident-run or resident-owned properties, while not prising open the lid of the can of worms.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for the amendments in this group.

I will take Amendment 22 first. I reassure the noble Lords that the Bill does not prevent parties in any sector, including construction firms, making use of payment arrangements through a bank or an escrow provider to facilitate the transfer of funds. The important distinction is between a third party facilitating payment of money that is due and a third party holding back that money as security for the supplier’s performance. The former remains permitted, the latter could amount to a retention and would therefore fall within the prohibition. Therefore, Amendment 22 is unnecessary.

The Government’s view, shared by many in the industry, is that construction should move away from cash retentions and towards modern, more secure and equitable forms of surety. We know that there are alternative forms of surety, including performance and retention bonds, already available in the UK which can mitigate risks for clients and firms. There are also alternatives used in other countries, such as warranty bonds, which are very common in Europe and are available in the UK. We will be working with surety providers to ensure that a range of alternatives is available when the ban comes into force.

In relation to Amendment 23, I reassure noble Lords that the Bill does not prescribe when stages or milestones must occur or prevent parties from agreeing interim valuations and payments. It regulates the period within which an amount must be paid once that payment becomes due. Genuine staged and interim payment arrangements will therefore remain entirely permissible. However, describing a withholding of money for work already completed and where payment is due as a staged payment would not prevent it falling within the prohibition on retention if, in substance, the money was being retained as security for the performance of contractual obligations.

The right for firms to be paid in staged payments on projects lasting more than 45 days is already enshrined in Section 107(2) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The Bill does not amend, qualify or undermine that right. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary. In implementing the provisions of the Bill, the Government will engage directly and closely with construction industry clients, specialist providers and representatives of smaller firms to provide guidance that legitimate payment arrangements can continue while preventing contractual devices being used to recreate cash retentions under another name.

On Amendment 24, we recognise the understandable intention that resident-led and resident-owned companies should have assurance that building work is completed properly and of high quality, and that defects are remedied without additional costs falling on leaseholders. We do not believe that retentions ensure this. To agree to this amendment would create a broad exemption for construction contracts entered into by resident management and right-to-manage companies. That would leave firms working on those buildings exposed to the risks associated with cash retentions. It could also create uncertainty where different ownership and management structures exist within the same building or development.

In addition, the process required by the Building Safety Act 2022 for delivering work on high-risk building places an emphasis on safety and quality. It includes numerous gateways, information requirements and independent reviews of the building. If clients and firms in their supply chain are meeting the requirements of the Act, there should be no need to deduct retentions. As Dame Judith Hackitt has noted, retentions are ineffective and undermine the effectiveness of the supply chain, which is why alternatives are required. For this legislation to be effective, it must incentivise the industry and its clients to end the practice of cash retentions and to adopt alternative forms of surety, together with improved quality management.

Finally, I address the request made by a number of noble Lords in Committee for further information about the work to develop alternatives to retention. The Construction Leadership Council has now appointed a new industry lead for this area, and we will be increasing our engagement with stakeholders across the industry in relation to alternative forms of surety and quality improvement from September. This will give us plenty of time to address those issues in advance of the introduction of the proposed ban.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

27: Clause 18, page 22, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) The adjudicator must reach a decision determining a relevant payment dispute before the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the dispute is referred to adjudication under the scheme.(5B) The adjudicator may compel parties to share relevant information with itself, if the sharing of such information is necessary for the fulfilment of the duty under subsection (5A).(5C) The Commissioner may extend the period in subsection (5A), in relation to a particular dispute, by such further period as the Commissioner considers reasonable, having regard in particular to the complexity of the dispute and the conduct of the parties.(5D) Where the Commissioner extends the period under subsection (5C), the Commissioner must notify the parties of the extension and of the reasons for it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires payment disputes referred to the adjudication scheme to be resolved within 60 days, unless the Small Business Commissioner considers a longer period reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 27, I shall also speak to Amendment 34. They are both in my name. Amendment 27 would require payment disputes referred to the adjudication scheme to be resolved within 60 days unless the Small Business Commissioner considers a longer period reasonable. The Bill creates a 60-day limit by which large private organisations must pay back small businesses. However, although, in the case of a dispute, there is a time limit for the dispute to be raised, there is no such limit on when the case should be resolved. This means that large companies could, in effect, contest a dispute and delay resolution, putting pressure on the SMEs to settle.

The amendment calls for the adjudicator to reach a decision determining a relevant payment dispute before the end of the period of 60 days, beginning from the day on which the dispute is referred to the adjudicator under the scheme. The 60 days suggested in the amendment is itself more generous than the 28-day time limit that is currently covered for the construction sector but should, at the very least, be seen as a backstop. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what limit he thinks the adjudication figure should be and how it would be applied in practice as the Bill stands.

Amendment 34 simply looks to lock in sufficient funding and government support for the Small Business Commissioner, to reflect her vastly wider remit. I am persuaded that some moves have already been made and that some are in the offing that will boost the capacity for the commissioner, but, as we have seen with Companies House, transforming an organisation into an investigative body is a huge undertaking. It is a cultural change that requires both resources and great resolve from the leadership team in that organisation. Both Houses need to be reassured that sufficient resources and government support are being made available, because if the Small Business Commissioner fails that will undermine the whole pretext of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for moving his amendment. Before I speak to this group, I once again thank the Minister for his engagement. We entered this part of the Bill with some apprehensions, not least regarding the funding of the Small Business Commissioner’s office. It is perhaps too soon to say that all those concerns have been quelled, but I appreciate the time that the Minister, the Small Business Commissioner herself and her team have taken to try to address the questions that we have all put forward.

I begin by addressing the amendments to which I and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom have added our names, namely those in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. Amendments 28 and 29 aim to bring some transparency to the Office of the Small Business Commissioner by requiring written reasons for declining to adjudicate a dispute, and by requiring the definition of a sufficient number of occasions to trigger an investigation into payment practices.

On the latter point, I accept the Government’s reasoning that a numerical definition does not sufficiently account for the scale of different poor payment practices. However, I hope that the Minister can therefore confirm that there will be some framework on which these decisions to investigate will be based.

I hope that the Minister will be able to outline the Government’s position on the former point—written reasons for declining to adjudicate a dispute. I understand that discretion and disclosure are considerations, so perhaps a middle ground that requires the informing of decisions to decline, without necessarily including the reasons for doing so, would be acceptable.

My concerns remain about putting a time limit on resolving disputes, as Amendment 27 would do. Although disputes should of course be addressed in a timely manner, the fact is that different disputes will require different resources and be of vastly different scales. An arbitrary time period risks rushing the commissioner’s office or forcing it to prioritise, or perhaps even to accept trade-offs. We do not believe that the benefits of a 60-day limit off-set those risks.

Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for providing us with a briefing beforehand on some of the previous funding of the Small Business Commissioner’s office and the Government’s plans for the future. We are satisfied that these have been modelled on the best predictions possible. I am sure your Lordships’ House would be grateful if the Minister could outline some of that data when he comes to reply to this debate—certainly at the Dispatch Box at some stage. I finish by asking whether there is a way to scrutinise the commissioner’s funding in the future. As I have said, we are satisfied with the predictions, but they are still only predictions. I am sure that there will be an internal review process into the effectiveness of these reforms, but this House deserves the opportunity to have some input into that process, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

These are concrete commitments that show the Government are already taking the necessary steps, so there is no need to include a separate budget publication requirement in the Bill. I will be happy to provide further updates ahead of commencement. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 27 and not to move the other amendments in the group.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister wholeheartedly for his response to both my amendments. The response to Amendment 27 was more ambitious than I was proposing, so I am very happy with that. His response to Amendment 34 on resources has been more than fulsome. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 27.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

30: Clause 24, page 37, line 42, leave out “in the United Kingdom”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment concerns regulations enabling the Small Business Commissioner to impose financial penalties for breach of payment reporting requirements. This amendment has the result that the penalties need not be linked to turnover in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I shall move Amendment 30 and speak to Amendments 31, 32, 43, 44 and 45, which sounds daunting but they are all the same amendment. These amendments are in my name, and I am happy to say that they have been countersigned by the Minister. The effect of these changes would be to remove the requirement for the Small Business Commissioner to use UK turnover alone when making an adjudication. I thank the Minister for his contribution to this.

There may well be cases where it is appropriate for UK activity only to be the basis for any fine—in fact, in most cases that will be the case—but there may be others where a broader turnover is appropriate; for example, where a company’s accounting practices effectively shrink UK turnover in order to shrink a penalty. In these cases, we need to give the Small Business Commissioner the power to prevent avoidance through profits-shifting and turnover-shifting. In Committee, I used the example of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which makes the same point and puts in place a different solution. Removing the UK from the description of how the Small Business Commissioner calculates any sanctions or giving that option to the Small Business Commissioner would give flexibility for the commissioner to pitch the right sanction to an errant business. For that reason, I beg to move Amendment 30.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as we come to the end of Report, I once again place on record my thanks to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their engagement with the passage of this Bill. Up to this point, we have had a very chummy time with a lot of cosy consensus, so noble Lords will be very pleased to know that I intend to introduce a note of disagreement on this amendment.

I begin by stating that I do not disagree with the premise of Amendment 30, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the Minister. Companies should ensure that they have good payment practices and that these are reported, and should be incentivised where necessary. I equally understand the reasoning behind giving the Small Business Commissioner the powers to both oversee and enforce the reporting of payment practices and performances. The office will have a closer knowledge of small business payment practices than regular departmental officials, so it makes sense that it is given this responsibility. The issue is therefore not one of principle but one of proportion.

Two other arms of the Government have the power to fine businesses based on global turnover rather than domestic turnover. They are the Competition and Markets Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office. These bodies deal with some of the most important and wide-reaching areas of our economy: the former with the upkeep of fair and competitive markets, the latter with the protection of the public’s private information.

Those issues are far greater in scale and gravity than what Clause 24 and the new Section 3A will give the SBC—the Small Business Commissioner—powers over. These powers are not even dealing with payment practices; they are dealing with the reporting of payment practices. Yet the office will be able to fine companies 1%, without even the discretion to fine less than 1%, of global turnover. To His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, this seems disproportionate, to say the very least. We do not believe that this is the right vehicle to address the subject of the profit shifting that the noble Lord Fox mentioned.

One of the key concerns that we have heard from stakeholders during the passage of this Bill is that, while they support maximum payment terms, there will be a transition period to implement the technology and payment systems. This is particularly the case with large multinational corporations. These companies have incredibly complex systems that organise payments across borders, time zones and legal frameworks. It is not outside the realm of possibility that a business such as Amazon, for example, has some teething problems and fails to accurately report payment practices and performance within the UK.

The result would be that the commissioner, based on a failure to report practices within the United Kingdom, would have the power to fine Amazon based on its global turnover. That would equate to more than £700 million for a potential technological error or delay. I do not think that power reflects the duty that we are dealing with.

Lastly, there is the question of incentives. The Office of the Small Business Commissioner justifiably prides itself on saving more money for small businesses than it costs the taxpayer. If value for money is the justification for the office’s existence, its incentive is to use its powers to raise money in order to continue its operation. I am not accusing the SBC of this; I am simply reflecting on the perverse incentives that occur when an arm of government relies on action to justify its continued existence. I do not think, given these natural incentives exist, that we should give any arm of the state the power to tax multinational businesses based on their global turnover for actions within the United Kingdom. We should especially reflect on this when we are not even discussing payment practices; we are discussing the reporting of payment practices.

Given that this amendment has the support of the majority of the House, we will not oppose it, but I would like to place on record my, and indeed His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s, concern about this measure. It would go some way to allaying my worries if the Minister could outline how many times a fine has been given under the existing Section 3, but I am still concerned that this is a disproportionate step that places far too much power in the hands of an ultimately unaccountable body. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

31: Clause 24, page 38, line 2, leave out “in the United Kingdom”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment mirrors my amendment of clause 24, page 37, line 42.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

43: Schedule 3, page 58, line 3, leave out “in the United Kingdom”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment concerns financial penalties that may be imposed by the Small Business Commissioner in relation to poor payment practices. This amendment has the result that the penalties need not be linked to turnover in the United Kingdom.