Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his diligent scrutiny of the late payment provisions in the Bill. We covered a wide range of areas during the debates. I hope noble Lords are now certain of the Government’s unwavering commitment to tackle late payment and are satisfied with the way that I have tried to address the concerns raised. We are all united in the belief that suppliers should be fairly compensated when they suffer from late payment. I was persuaded by the noble Lord’s arguments and made a commitment to bring forward amendments to specify in the Bill how we intend to use the reporting power in relation to payment performance and interest owed and paid. These amendments deliver on that commitment.
Amendment 1 inserts a reference to “performance” in the Bill. This amendment makes clear that payment performance is a vital component of the new mandatory reporting requirement and that we are committed to include it in regulations. Greater transparency will bring to the fore poor payment performance. Amendments 2 and 3 make express reference to late payment interest as an example of the type of information that may be included in the new reporting requirement. We are committed to using this power in the Bill to require companies to report on the amount of interest owed or paid because of late payment. This new reporting requirement will bring increased transparency to payment performance.
Together with the wider package of measures we are driving forward—to improve public sector prompt payment and strengthen the Prompt Payment Code—this will encourage a change in corporate behaviour. For far too long, large companies in the UK have used their economic power to make gains at supplier expense. The commitment I have made today will help to ensure that suppliers are fairly compensated. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments and for her unfailing courtesy throughout the passage of the Bill. We share a deep concern that the scope of late payments and poor payment practices is not only unfair, unjust and damaging to small businesses but is a brake on the entire economic potential of our country. With the sum outstanding approaching £60 billion, the Bill is an important step in trying not just to stop it rising any further but to create the ability to reverse that number as strongly and rapidly as we can.
While we favour additional measures—some of which could be considered in secondary legislation—we are grateful to the Government for recognising the need to add strength to their approach by ensuring that the payment report goes beyond intentions and reports on actual performance. In addition, the interest figure in payments highlights existing late payment legislation. These measures have our strong support and we are grateful to the Minister and the Government for listening and for their positive response and detailed scrutiny of our suggestions.
It may be for the convenience of the House for me to thank the Minister for the letter she sent to my noble friend Lord Stevenson and myself helping to tidy up some of the points of contention raised on Report relating to the co-protections when a pub is sold, the role of the adjudicator in these matters, investment by pub companies and the market rent only option, and the consultation on the code itself and on secondary legislation. We are very grateful for what the Minister has written and believe that it resolves almost all of the outstanding issues at this stage. Again, we offer our strong support for that.
We have good reason to be very proud and supportive of small businesses. One has only to look at the annual reports on European SMEs, published by the European Commission, to know how strong we could be with more focused public policy support. Let us hope that this Bill is a strong step in the way forward in dealing with late payments and prompt payments and ensuring that our small businesses take full advantage of the position that they are in. They are, of course, the backbone of our economy.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, we come to several sets of amendments on pubs, a subject that has been much debated in this House and in the other place. We need to set the scene for today’s debate, which I think falls more naturally under the heading of the next grouping of amendments on market rent only. I suggest we proceed on that basis if noble Lords are content and treat this group of government amendments as the relatively technical group that it is.
For the first time, tied tenants will have a statutory code they can rely on, with an independent adjudicator to enforce it, with real sanctions at its disposal. There seems to be agreement in both Houses that a statutory Pubs Code and an adjudicator should be established. In setting up the Pubs Code Adjudicator, we have generally followed the Groceries Code Adjudicator model. This included specifying in this Bill:
“The Adjudicator may make arrangements with the Secretary of State or any other public authority for staff to be seconded to the Adjudicator”.
However, the GCA has experienced significant difficulties in securing staff on secondment from within the public sector. There is no single reason for this, but both the niche nature of the GCA and the ongoing pressures on departmental staffing levels are factors. We are keen to avoid the Pubs Code Adjudicator encountering similar problems. Amendments 33A and 33B to Schedule 1 therefore enable the adjudicator also to take secondees from the private sector. This will provide much needed flexibility for the adjudicator to find suitable staff from a wider pool—for example RICS-qualified surveyors to advise on rent assessments. We considered whether the adjudicator should have the ability to employ staff directly. However, we concluded that allowing secondments from the private sector would provide the flexibility needed without imposing employer responsibilities on the adjudicator.
Amendment 33C ensures that the adjudicator’s secondment policies are approved by the Secretary of State. This will enable the Secretary of State to specify that remuneration and the terms and conditions of persons on secondment to the adjudicator are in line with the department’s secondments policy. The amendment also provides that a person seconded to the adjudicator remains an employee of the employer he or she was seconded from.
Finally, Amendments 33E and 33F ensure that the staff of the adjudicator are subject to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in common with staff of government departments. I beg to move.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, we are happy to support these government amendments and are grateful to the Minister for the way in which she has dealt with this matter. We believe that our debate on the more substantive issues in the next group of amendments will cut to the heart of many of the important issues.
We support these technical amendments and are encouraged that the Government have learnt lessons from the introduction of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which will be applied to ensure that the Pubs Code Adjudicator works effectively from the beginning. The only point we would make is that secondees should be drawn not just from the private sector but from a range of different areas so that they will provide the necessary experience to make the adjudicator’s work as effective as possible. Indeed, even within the context of the private sector they should be drawn from a range of disciplines. Apart from that point, on which we would be grateful for clarification from the Minister, we are happy to support these amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am happy to clarify that we will take secondees from the best place possible, which could include—the noble Lord is probably referring to this—another Government, a non-profit organisation or some other source. This is to give us the flexibility to find the right people.
Lord Mendelsohn
Will the Minister confirm that we may return to matters contained in Amendments 33AS, 33AW, 33AX and 33AY at Third Reading?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I was about to make the point that there are concerns on both sides. If the noble Lord wishes to press these amendments, we should test the opinion of the House.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, who has been an assiduous follower of the Bill. These are important tidying-up amendments that help correct and clarify some key measures in the Bill. In particular, Amendment 33AR is an essential requirement to make sure that there is consistency in the Bill. I hope that either the amendment will be accepted or the Government will agree to bring it back at Third Reading.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree to this amendment. I explained why we could agree to “must” elsewhere in the Bill but we are unable to agree to this amendment for reasons that I have also explained.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling the amendment and am grateful to him for providing the background to it. I think he suggested that it was a probing amendment but it may be helpful if I explain some of the concerns it may raise in its current form. We must also consider the potential costs and wider implications of such a measure and the actions that we are already taking in this space, so I will endeavour to do that.
If we attempted to register the beneficial owners of all properties, that would impact on the 24 million titles on the Land Register. I am glad that this amendment would add the Land Registry to the long list of government departments involved in helping with this Bill. Last year, the Land Registry processed more than 32 million applications, which underpinned property sales worth hundreds of billions of pounds. Depending on how it is defined, a register of this kind could impact on millions of home owners, the vast majority of whom will be entirely law-abiding, as I sure the noble Lord agrees. It could also potentially deter perfectly lawful inward investment in all our major towns and cities.
If we consider the problem of companies—particularly overseas companies—being used to obscure the identity of the true owners of high-value properties, the scale of the problem is comparatively small. Approximately 0.4% of all titles in England and Wales are registered to overseas companies. Implementing the proposed reform would require us either to create a brand new register or substantially to alter either the existing Land Register, the company register or both. We need to consider carefully the links and interactions between these registers. We would also need to consider new mechanisms for requiring individuals to provide beneficial ownership information in relation to property.
In short, the cost and wider implications of such a measure would be huge for both government and property owners. This seems perverse in a Bill that is designed to help small business. Furthermore, a property register is not required by any international standards or EU directive. It is not a commitment the UK or our G7 or G20 partners have made. On that basis, I urge noble Lords to consider this problem in the context of the regimes we already have in place and the reforms we are committed to make in this important Bill. For example, the Land Registry already records the legal owner of a property, both residential and commercial, whether that is an individual or a company, and regardless of whether that company has been registered in the UK. Where the registered owner is a company, the Land Registry will also record the Companies House registration number for UK companies, or the territory of incorporation for overseas companies. This is information that can be accessed by the public. Where allegations of corruption or fraud are raised, the Land Registry works across a variety of government agencies to assist their investigations.
Let me be clear: the UK does not turn a blind eye to corruption and money laundering. Noble Lords will no doubt be familiar with the case of James Ibori, a former Nigerian politician who is reported to have owned a number of UK properties. In 2012, he was sentenced by a UK court to 13 years’ imprisonment for money laundering.
In this Bill we are taking forward world-leading reforms to ensure transparency of UK company ownership and control. We will talk about the register of people with significant control in more detail shortly. However, that reform means that, subject to the will of Parliament, from 2016 all UK companies will have to register their beneficial owners at Companies House. So where a property is owned by a UK company, information on that company’s beneficial ownership will be immediately accessible, online and for free once submitted. However, the misuse of companies is a global problem, and we need a global solution. That is why the UK is working hard to encourage other jurisdictions to take equally ambitious steps. We are seeing progress. G7 and G20 countries have made firm commitments on company beneficial ownership. EU member states will be required to implement central registers accessible to those with a “legitimate interest” when the fourth money laundering directive is adopted shortly.
These commitments will all help ensure that UK authorities can quickly and easily access beneficial ownership information on non-UK companies. These reforms to company transparency form part of our commitment to protecting the integrity of our financial system and ensuring that the UK maintains a strong reputation as a clean and safe place to invest, and a hostile environment for corrupt funds.
We will of course continue to look at what more can be done to tackle company misuse and illicit financial flows. However, that action must be proportionate and targeted. For all the reasons that I have set out, I do not believe that a register of property beneficial ownership represents a sensible or proportionate step. I hope noble Lords have been reassured by my explanation and some of the information that I have given, and that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, there is certain irony in a Government who used the company wrapper on the purchase of property as a means of enhancing taxation perhaps not having been alive to the considerable opportunities that the amendment may present in the long run to deal with a variety of other things.
Aside from that, I thank the Minister for her reply. Uppermost in our considerations, in this and other amendments that we will come to, is ensuring there is the right level of transparency to ensure the integrity of how this country’s financial system operates. That is a goal we share. Both parties feel that, over time, they have dealt with the issue, only to find that problems come up again. It will constantly be work in progress and there is no step that one can take that will be sufficient to give everyone confidence that these matters will be dealt with. It would be useful for the Government to examine this area further. It is not a question of size or numbers. The reason that this problem is manageable is that a smaller number is involved, as opposed to the large mass of homes, and there will be little impact on the larger, law-abiding mass of people.
I am encouraged by what the noble Baroness has said. It is encouraging that we are looking to amendments that produce further enhancements to make sure that the ambitions that she has set out are fulfilled. I hope that she is sympathetic to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his amendments on the important matter of late payment and for the general support that he has given to the Bill’s provisions. I also thank him for his diligence and interest. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, to my noble friend Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, with their business experience, to my noble friend Lord Cope and to my noble friend Lord Stoneham for his perceptive and practical comments about the risk of unintended consequences—gleaned, I think, from his very careful study and attendance every day in Committee.
Before turning to the amendments, I want to reassure the House about the Government’s unwavering commitment to tackling late payment. The measures we are taking forward in the Bill form part of a comprehensive package of measures to bring an end to the UK’s late payment culture. The Government are absolutely clear that large companies should lead by example and pay their small suppliers within 30 days. We need to shake up corporate culture to drive home our message—that it is not fair and not right to pay your suppliers late or use unfair payment terms.
That is why we are taking action in the Bill to require the UK’s larger companies to report on their payment practices, and we have already consulted on the detail of what this might look like. We proposed that companies report quarterly against a comprehensive set of metrics, including the proportion of invoices paid beyond 30, 60, 90 and 120 days and the average time taken overall to pay invoices. Therefore, there is a real incentive to show that you pay promptly and on time, and an opportunity for companies to explain if payment is late. It is a strong brake on bad behaviour, as my noble friend Lady Harding suggested.
This reporting will be rigorously monitored, with a company director required to sign it off, and breaches will be sanctionable by a criminal offence. Importantly, we will require companies to make this information public, so there will also be the power of transparency. The new reporting requirements will mean that poor payment practices are exposed, and it is this transparency that will drive a fundamental change in corporate behaviour. I also highlight that on Monday the Government published a summary of responses to our consultation. While the Government are still considering the evidence received, I am pleased that a clear majority of stakeholders agreed with our overall approach, although there were concerns about some aspects, including our very rigorous reporting requirements.
Last week, my right honourable friend Matthew Hancock MP also announced significant changes to the Prompt Payment Code. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and others have encouraged us to strengthen this, and the code will now promote 30-day payment terms as standard and enforce maximum 60-day terms. The change will be rigorously enforced by the new code compliance board, which will include people from business representative bodies who will investigate challenges made against signatories to the code by their suppliers. The compliance board will remove signatories found to be in breach of the code’s principles and standards. This will shine further light on poor payment practices. The Government are also seeking views on how to provide business representatives bodies with additional legal powers to challenge grossly unfair contractual terms or practices, which will build on existing protections for small businesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, highlighted the issue of Lidl. The Government are clear that large companies including Lidl, which is a leading German supermarket chain, should lead by example and pay their small suppliers within 30 days. It is neither fair nor right to use unduly long payment terms. As I said earlier, we are already taking action in the Bill to require such companies to report on their payment practices through very tough requirements, including the detailed metrics that I have already described.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, talked about the situation in the insurance industry and I will certainly look at the points that he raised. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, gave us a list of companies reported to be squeezing suppliers. This is further evidence, frankly, of the need for change and the action we are taking in this Bill and in the regulations made under it. He mentioned Diageo, which is already being investigated by the Prompt Payment Code administrator. The Government are being tough for small business, and we will take the necessary steps to stamp out poor practices.
I turn to the specific amendments. I recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed and I am pleased to say I have been persuaded by some of the noble Lord’s arguments. I can confirm today that we will table amendments at Third Reading to insert the word “performance” into Clause 3, which was a concern that the noble Lord pressed in Committee to which we have listened. I also commit that we will use this power to require companies to report on the amount of interest owed on late payment because we agree that this will help to exert the necessary pressure on companies to make sure that their suppliers are fairly compensated. We will make express reference in the Bill to interest owed and paid. We will introduce amendments on both these points at Third Reading.
I now turn to the proposal to require companies to prepare a compensation plan on each instance that they fail to pay late payment interest. I am afraid that, on this point, I continue to believe that introducing this measure would lead to unintended and undesirable consequences. For example, businesses could lengthen their payment terms to avoid accidently having to pay out. If they do get caught by the requirement, there could be debates about whether payment plans provided cover for delaying tactics. While we are committed to tackling late payment, we are equally committed to trying to incentivise prompt payment with as little bureaucracy as possible. The discussions that we had with stakeholders indicated support for this view. These discussions reinforced the findings from our 2012 consultation that introducing further penalties would not tackle the problem of late payment. Instead, respondents called for greater transparency on payment practices, which this Bill delivers.
The noble Lord gave us some interesting feedback on the website. He will be glad to hear that BIS has just awarded the Chartered Institute of Credit Management £50,000 to improve that very website, so he is on the money. The improved website will go live later this month and I can only thank him for identifying this issue and sharing it with the House. I shall take it away and ensure that it is addressed urgently.
It is clear that the noble Lord and I are united in our mission to tackle late payment, but we must make sure that any interventions will work to the benefit of the very small businesses that we seek to protect.
I turn to the question of ensuring the report’s accuracy. Our consultation proposed that the reporting frequency be quarterly, as companies’ ability to pay or practices in paying trade creditors can change quickly. Therefore, we are not proposing that companies report in their annual report. Instead, we propose that the report should be signed off by the company’s director, with breaches sanctionable by criminal penalties, using the power in the Bill to mandate reporting. The summary of responses we have published shows broad support for this proposal. Respondents clearly feel that these measures would suffice to ensure the report’s accuracy and I therefore do not agree that we should require further assurances from an auditor.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their significant contribution to the scrutiny of these provisions. We have considered very carefully the proposals set out in the amendment and I hope that, with my commitment to bring back some changes at Third Reading, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for her extensive response to these amendments. I shall go through a few issues and then come back to them. In general, I thank the Minister for her very constructive and open approach throughout to these issues and to making improvements to the Bill. We share a great interest in and concern for helping to develop small businesses and doing what we can for them.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I had the great pleasure of talking about her, and our close connection, when she made her maiden speech. She is a remarkable business figure and I will address a number of the issues that she raised. The criticism has been made that we are trying to change culture through legislation. That is not our approach; it is the Government’s. The noble Baroness talked about the limitations of this. I have no doubt there are benefits to it, which I support, but I do not find myself on the same side of the argument as her on that one. We are adding duties and obligations because we have come to the conclusion that that is the way to address the size and scale of the problem. It is certainly true that legislation rarely changes the heart but, as the phrase goes, it can restrain the heartless. There are times when you have to use legislation as a lever to make things happen. I agree that the reporting requirements are an obligation, but they are a necessary one, and I hope that her support for them is heard by many other people in business.
I do not think that the issue of how customers and suppliers contract with each other comes up until the next set of amendments. They are slightly more complex so I will address that issue then. I want to say to the noble Baroness that I have become a bit of a junkie on the website. I am grateful that it is to get a £50,000 refresh, and perhaps even an app. Having looked through the Prompt Payment Code, I noticed that TalkTalk is not a signatory to it. We are talking about changing the culture, but if someone sitting in this House does not yet have a sense of how that culture should change, it is an issue when we come to address business at large. It is my feeling that culture change is insufficient in and of itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, talked about being overly prescriptive, and he raised those concerns in Committee. I listened carefully to what he said and I have done my research on it. I felt at the time that the point was insufficient because of the scale of the problem and the way it is growing. When we look at how other countries with far less significant economic problems, or even problems in how to deal with this issue, we can see that they are the ones that have been infinitely more prescriptive. We can look at Ireland, while legislation in Germany passed just last year shows how that country has moved forward. It is only by being more prescriptive that we get clarity and avoid unintended consequences, which are more likely to arise in circumstances where a variety of alternative payment terms or arrangements are allowed to be put in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised similar issues in Committee. Again, I listened carefully to him and I decided to take my cue from the GOV.UK website on the question of how we look at the dates. The website explains when a payment becomes late. It states:
“If you haven’t already agreed when the money will be paid, the law says the payment is late after 30 days for public authorities and business transactions after either: the customer gets the invoice”,
or,
“you deliver the goods or provide the service”.
That is how we reach the point where this can be tested.
I am grateful to the Minister and we are encouraged by some of the changes that have been made. We feel that the areas of performance and being able to identify the interest payments are useful steps. However, I am bound to say that my noble friend Lord Mitchell made a powerful speech, going through yet again those companies that have good records in a variety of areas but allow themselves to do what has become far too natural and far too easy in the context of the UK. We stand out from others because we are not as strong as we should be on dealing with prompt payment and people who get into late payments. The prize is there. We are talking about close to £60 billion, so putting even a small proportion of that sum into the economy will have a huge accelerating impact. We on this side think that being on the side of small businesses means getting more money racing through the economy. The need to increase employment prospects requires us to press the amendments and push to see whether we can get the economy moving by getting these late payments to small businesses sorted out much sooner than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments on unfair practices and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for sharing his experience, including points of agreement. Unfair payment terms and practices hit small businesses the hardest and are simply unacceptable. I consequently have considerable sympathy with the intention behind these amendments.
Our intention is to drive a fundamental shift in payment culture—a paradigm shift in UK corporate behaviour to stamp out poor payment practices. Obviously, the key question is how we achieve this. One option is to seek to tackle each and every harmful practice as we spot it, but I suggest that this is futile. As the previous debate suggested, if businesses want to exert undue pressure on their suppliers, they are likely to find ways to do so. Because banning individual practices only tackles the symptoms, it will not drive a change in underlying corporate culture. We are doing something different and using a new transparency to drive change in corporate behaviour. The power of the new reporting requirement should not be dismissed. It will subject companies’ payment practices to full public scrutiny, thereby allowing poorer-performing companies to be named and shamed. In so doing, it will exert significant pressure on companies to move away from unfair practices.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned the case of Premier Foods, which I believe shows that transparency can successfully lead to swift change in practices. Following public scrutiny of its “pay to stay” practice, which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, rightly described as egregious, Premier Foods moved quickly to simplify its controversial supplier list scheme. The Government are clear that large companies should not be using their economic power to place further strains on already hard-pressed small businesses. The Secretary of State has already asked the Competition and Markets Authority to consider the available evidence on “pay to stay” clauses, which I hope will be welcome to the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Mitchell. The new reporting requirement will also elevate poor payment practices to become a boardroom issue. We have proposed that a company director signs off the report to ensure it is taken seriously at the very top.
We have tested this proposition with stakeholders, and most have shown little appetite for greater regulation on specific practices. Businesses in the UK value the freedom of contract that has been built up over hundreds of years but they strongly agree with the Government that increased transparency will help us to take significant steps to address the current imbalance in economic power which noble Lords have described so graphically. That is why we must focus our efforts on getting transparency right by putting in place a comprehensive, robust reporting requirement for all the UK’s larger companies. Clause 3 is already drafted sufficiently widely to allow the Government to require reporting on the subject of these amendments through secondary legislation.
I turn briefly to the detail of the amendments. Late payment legislation already sets a maximum 30-day period to quibble after the receipt of relevant goods and services. We sought views on this issue during our recent consultation. There continues to be little appetite for legislation. Our stakeholders tell us that they are reluctant to use current avenues to challenge due to fears of damaging relations with customers—a point which has already been made. We also heard concerns that the change, as proposed, could result in unintended consequences, with companies starting to dispute more invoices as a means of gaining time to review them. Our stakeholders have instead called for increased transparency on dispute resolution processes. The Government will therefore require companies to report on these as part of the mandatory reporting requirement.
We also consulted on unilateral changes to payment terms. As a matter of contract law, unilateral changes cannot be imposed on a contracting party after the contract has been agreed. However, in reality, smaller companies, as has been said, may feel that they have no option other than to agree when such changes to an existing contract are proposed by bigger companies. A ban as proposed would not prevent this practice, as it would not prevent bigger companies from seeking changes and would not address the reasons why smaller companies feel unable to resist such changes—while effectively rewriting the core principles of contract law. Instead, therefore, our stakeholders supported increased transparency to shine a light on poor behaviour. I again propose to mandate reporting on this in our reporting requirement.
Charging suppliers to join or remain on supplier lists and seeking to reverse fixed payment and apply retrospective discounts and charges are deeply concerning practices. Although we could put in place a blanket prohibition on these practices, they are but two of the ways in which larger companies can seek unreasonable commercial advantage from smaller suppliers. Our stakeholders believe that bans on specific practices would be easy to sidestep.
Once again, increased transparency will help address the economic imbalance involved. Our stakeholders support increased transparency on the use of “pay to stay” clauses. I can commit to requiring companies to report on these practices in the reporting requirement. We also commit to holding further discussions with stakeholders to discuss whether reporting on other practices mentioned, such as retrospective discounts or charges, should be mandated in the prompt payment report—which, of course, we have the power to do. I hope the noble Lord agrees that I have sought to address his concerns through the medium of transparency and, on that basis, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for that reply, although I have to say that I remain extremely concerned about part of the approach. I know that the Minister shares a great deal of the concerns about this and that she is a very practical person who has looked at different ways to deal with it. Talking about transparency, culture and the possibility that there will be attempts to sidestep this is rather similar to closing the door after the horse has bolted. We are in that situation now. The Minister says that doing something more prescriptive will obviate what she is trying to do on culture, but I happen to think that it will work, while her approach will not.
I will give the example of a good friend of mine—perhaps they will not be after I have raised this—who is a senior member of a company that uses a method called central distribution charges, which is effectively “pay to stay” by another means. It uses it in the UK, but not in Germany, France or Italy. In the end, that is because it is not allowed to use it, as it is not a proper term. My concern is that we can say, “They will sidestep it”, but we are in that situation now.
Companies come to all sorts of arrangements. We hear great stories from companies such as Next, Dunelm or John Lewis, where the price you pay is the price you pay, but there are far too few of them. Many others use a variety of measures to ensure that they meet a margin way in excess of what they have agreed the contract should deliver. That is our concern. It is wrong to say we can do this using the means of the reporting mechanism, because there are other contract terms you can use to sidestep the reporting mechanisms that we have. A much better and more effective way of doing this and stopping every such method is to create the architecture and a framework to look at what you can stop.
A very famous online company has a 40 to 50-day payment period. At 90 days they send fines, which you then have to contest. There is no individual you can speak to—it has to be done online. Eventually, you will get your payment terms, possibly within 180 days. They extend it through a variety of mechanisms which would not be covered by the existing provisions or by the transparency arrangements. Those are the problems which we are still some way from meaningfully addressing. It is very important for us to consider how we go further on these asymmetries and poor practices and to look at the sorts of things which others, using more prescriptive means, have been able to address through legislation or regulation.
There is a strong case for these amendments. I am conscious that the Minister has made some progress, if it is somewhat glacial compared to what I would prefer. However, on the basis that we can get the Government to take these matters seriously and that they are prepared to deal with the most egregious examples and to start dealing with where companies and poor practice ends up, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification. The problem is that both the items she has described and other items might be covered, but perhaps I could make a little more progress.
I accept that the issue should not simply be dismissed for exactly the kind of point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has made. There are various points that need to be explored, so in the spirit of collaboration the Government consider that a possible way forward is to hold a public call for evidence, which we need. If the noble Lord will agree to this and withdraw his amendment, I propose that my department publish a call for evidence before the end of this Parliament so this can be taken forward. As I have said previously, small businesses and micro-businesses are not unprotected at the moment. There are protections in the existing law and these also allow businesses to enter into flexible transactions. All businesses need the freedom to contract for their particular requirements, which the current framework allows.
The call for evidence—if this seems a positive way forward—would ask whether these current arrangements offer sufficient protection or whether a gap in the law exists. If such a gap was found to exist, it would enable the Government to better assess whether this could be addressed by extending some of the consumer protections in what should shortly become the Consumer Rights Act to small businesses and micro-businesses, or through other options if they seem better.
I wish to thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the commitment they have shown to this issue. I know we share the same objective of ensuring small businesses and micro-businesses are well supported. I hope that on this basis he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayter for her intervention. As always, she has been able to encapsulate this issue with the use of some very vivid and impressive examples and I pay tribute to her strong advocacy for small businesses and consumer rights.
I will start by saying a couple of words on what the Minister said on the substance of the amendments, and then I will turn to the other matters. I listened very carefully to what she said. I think that there is a limited issue on costs versus benefits in relation to this. The costs at the moment are heavy burdens on micro-businesses and I think that the cost-benefit analysis of this is quite limited. I am less concerned about some of the unintended consequences that she suggests because some of them are already the sort of things covered in the two Acts that she forced me to look at after Committee. I am not sure I enjoyed reading them but I did look at them to try and get better sense of what is contained in the Sale of Goods Act and the Supply of Goods and Services Act and how they operate. A lot of the issues which she raises are already covered there. In addition, the nature of the contractual relationships is clearly covered in the other Acts and is outside that. I know that she is extremely accomplished in her task, and that she does not just take the legal advice that comes from the department without scrutiny. There is an issue here about some of the caution always inherent in some of that legal advice.
Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for a very constructive suggestion and an excellent way forward, which we on this side strongly agree with and for which we are very grateful to her for suggesting. Outside this, I might try to persuade her perhaps to add a little money for a bit of research on the cost-benefit analysis—that will not be too hard a task. However, with appreciation for a very constructive response to our amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not wish to sound churlish, but I hope she will forgive me if I raise a couple of points in relation to what she has said. I made the point twice that this was not about trying to create a process that was rigged in favour, but was much more about making sure that procurement was open to small business because everything—the skills, systems and outputs—was designed towards achieving a better outcome, so that small business would find it easier to compete to try to gain those sorts of contracts.
I think there are different ways in which the numbers have been calculated. I do not wish to doubt them too much, but some of the tier 1 classification subcontracting has been reclassified. It seems that the numbers have changed slightly. There is progress and I do not wish to undermine or contest that, but it is important that we maintain our ambition for this.
On Amendment 27, I am encouraged that the Minister stated very clearly that it was complementary.
This is important and I would be grateful if the Government would consider what they could do to make sure what they are trying to do was much more explicit. I am afraid that there is great concern about what local authorities must do; how they must act and comply. I think they are actually very good at the job. One of the guides I read recently was for Wiltshire. If the Minister can show me a better central government guide to how to procure than Wiltshire has produced, I would be very surprised and more than happy to give her even more fulsome praise from the Dispatch Box than I have already. An important dimension is that we are placing the onus on local authorities, which have been so good at doing it. I thank the Minister for her comments but an outstanding issue is that some local authorities have done a very good job and we should be mindful of that.
On Amendment 31, the procurement adjudicator has a very useful function. There are systems of redress, but this is not really about those. It is about systems of intervention. As the Minister rightly says, they are doing things on redress, like strengthening the mystery shopper, and we discussed this in Committee. There are also the usual methods of employing lawyers and going through the courts. However, the point of an adjudicator in these circumstances is to be much more dynamic, engaged and involved in encouraging the capacity of those procuring and the people involved in designing the processes. There needs to be a more dynamic conversation to make sure the skills are there. I make the point again that everyone will recognise at different times that there is a risk-averse culture; systems are repeated and there is a lack of a dynamic sense about how you procure better. In the private sector, some go through a sort of performance to make sure their procuring capacity becomes ever more skilful, but this is probably lacking in the public sector. That dynamic conversation, which may need a mediator, is what the adjudicator is for. It is not just about systems of redress.
I have had a quick look at Contracts Finder as it stands at the moment in its beta version. Although I welcome the initiative, it is not particularly user-friendly and needs a fair degree of work to make it so. If the Minister would consider making it available also as an app, then the design might be more useful and reflective of what is needed and it would be more accessible to some businesses. There is no point in putting it on one site if it is not as readily available as it could be. In summary, I would be very grateful if the Minister would give further consideration to what we have said and see if there is any way to deal with the areas we are trying to address on how to get the systems working to procure better. I am very grateful that the Government will look at what I said earlier but anything that would give a stronger indication of how we could do something a little bit more inventive, to add to the efforts that she has already outlined, would be greatly appreciated at Third Reading.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I say that I am very happy to reflect further on the important discussion that we have had. I thank him for drawing attention to the Wiltshire guide, because I am a native of Wiltshire, and for his suggestion of making the finder into an app. I will, perhaps, pass that challenge on to those concerned at the heart of government and see whether they can deliver it.
Lord Mendelsohn
After such a fantastic response, how is it possible for me to say anything other than “I beg leave to withdraw the amendment”?
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe(9 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for some excellent amendments. It is important to understand this in the context of the Bill. Amendment 68T addresses one of the big issues we have with information in commercial sectors, which works terribly to the disadvantage of small businesses. We think that very serious consideration should be given to this. Amendment 68U considers the opportunities to create market access for small businesses. That would be very useful and have many beneficial by-products, and would certainly trigger a great deal of capacity for small businesses to thrive in a sector with dominant market features.
I encourage the Government to look very sympathetically towards these amendments. There are issues with Amendment 68U. I did a quick calculation of what it might cost the industry; I do not think it is that much but I would be very interested if the Government came forward with whether or not they think there are any difficult parameters to it. I am not convinced that there are. It would be useful if the Government were to come forward very positively on this.
My noble friend Lord Whitty made a very important point in the previous group of amendments: it is nice to hear that matters will be taken seriously, but there was a great deal of anxiety on this side as we went through that group. As we get to other groups of amendments, such as the one beginning with Amendment 96ZB, we will look for greater assurances that these matters will be taken seriously. However, on small businesses, this is a very neat and useful group of amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for these amendments. In the spirit of collaboration, perhaps I can explain why we see them as problematic and see whether he agrees.
Amendment 68T would require pub-owning companies to publish wholesale prices. Even if that requirement was limited to alcoholic drinks, it would make public the details of a commercial financial arrangement between two parties to the world at large—including the pub owner’s customers, if I have understood the amendment correctly. It is important to stress that in this Part of the Bill we are regulating the relationship between tied tenants and their pub companies. At no point in our consultations has the need to publish wholesale prices emerged as a requirement to address unfairness. To do so would be an additional piece of regulation for the sector on top of the regulation we are introducing. In a few cases, pub-owning companies that we expect to be covered by the code already publish their wholesale drink prices online. Others publish those prices on a site with access restricted to their own tenants. Others do not publish them at all. On beer prices, tied tenants will tend to pay higher prices for their beer than from an outside wholesaler. That is integral to the tied deal. We recognise that transparency is important, and the Pubs Code already provides that transparency where it is needed—in the relationship between the tenant and the pub-owning company. As I said, the Pubs Code will require the wholesale prices to be provided to the tenant, as well as the current and relevant price lists.
Turning to Amendment 68U on guest beer, when the Government consulted on the issues and evidence that preceded the drafting of these clauses, we included questions about guest beer. The reasons for rejecting that option were clearly set out in our response to the consultation. Some will remember that I come from an all-male family of very keen beer drinkers, so I sympathise with the point, but while there was considerable support for the right to stock a guest beer, there were concerns about the potential for this to undermine the tied model by reducing the alignment of interests between the tenant and the pub company. This was because many tenants would select a draught lager as guest beer, which would typically be the biggest-selling beer. The proposal in the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to address this concern by stipulating that the guest beer should be limited to a brand of cask-conditioned or bottle-conditioned beer. I understand that. Unfortunately, this raises potential competition law issues. We are advised that restricting the guest beer to a particular type is likely to be contrary to EU competition law.
I hope that that background shows that the Government have considered the noble Lord’s proposition seriously and that, in the circumstances, he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I have only a few points to make on these matters as the issues have already been covered quite well. However, I want to stress that these are highly important to our consideration of the Bill and we will look closely at the evolution of the Government’s thinking on them. We stand ready to work with the Government on these amendments and are content to move forward with them in the Bill, on the basis of there being discussion at a later time. However, we would be very concerned if there were no further changes.
We are concerned with how the thresholds are framed. We accept that the Government are focused on the pub-owning companies and we are highly supportive of that. We do not like the formulation that uses the phrase “tied pubs”. We believe there is an overwhelming case to use the terms we proposed—“tenanted” and “leased”—and we would like to see these in the Bill. We have some sympathy with the Government’s predicament on getting these definitions right, but we hope they are willing to show some flexibility on it. There is considerable concern that the situation can be gamed and that the provision of a power to the Secretary of State to vary the number of 500, and to grant exclusions, could be a serious and significant weakening of the Bill or a measure to ensure that anti-avoidance measures can be made more effective.
It is very important that there is a much clearer statement about what the dual-purpose clauses are and that what we put in the Bill is consistent with the work of the other place. It would be very useful if the Minister could give us much greater reassurance on that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends and to noble Lords for their amendments. We are, of course, happy to meet with noble Lords to discuss how these amendments work, the needs of small business and anti-avoidance. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that reform should be about the tie. There is a difference in Committee this evening but a number of concerns have been expressed. These include the lack of draft regulations which, I am afraid, reflects the fact that MRO was a late amendment to this important Bill.
Having said that, perhaps I could talk a bit about the powers and then quickly address the amendments so that the Committee can understand where we are coming from, ahead of any discussions. First, any use of the power would need to be on the basis of strong evidence to justify the exclusion of a type of agreement or type of company. Without this evidence, it would be open to challenge. For example, if it were used to exclude one or two pub companies, it could be seen as a discriminatory use of the power and would lead to a high risk of successful legal challenge. Any attempt to undermine the principle of the legislation—that is, by exempting all pubs—would be an improper use of the power, as it would be subverting the will of Parliament.
Amendments 91AZA, 91BA and 91CA would include the free-of-tie market in the scope of our provisions. As I set out in my opening remarks, the evidence of the past 10 years, from the BIS Select Committee and the government consultation onwards, shows that the problems in the pub industry relate to abuses of the tied relationship. We do not have evidence of a problem in the free-of-tie or managed market.
Amendments 91A, 91B and 91C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seek to lower the threshold to capture pub companies with 100 or more tied pubs. I have probably covered this ground adequately in our earlier discussions, and in the interest of time, if the noble Lord is happy, I will not repeat the points.
I should probably talk about the need for Clause 68; that might be helpful. It is an important clause, as it is the means by which we can ensure that the definition of a “tied pub” does not inadvertently capture a restaurant or hotel premises. We are already aware of a fish and chip restaurant chain that may meet the definition as set out in Clause 65, and it is possible that there could be other such cases. We would be happy to talk through that concern. We all think that we know a pub when we see one and we think we know the difference between a pub and a fish and chip shop, but increasing food consumption in pub, gastropubs and so on has made separation by legal definition more complex. Clause 68 provides a power for the Secretary of State to exempt a particular type of tenant or premises from the Pubs Code by secondary legislation so that only pub premises are in scope.
The noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Whitty, were concerned about pubcos turning tied pubs into free-of-tie pubs by coming under the threshold. The evidence that we have of abuse is in the tied market. As I said earlier, if pub companies turned pubs into free-of-tie pubs, their ability to exploit their tenants through the tie would be gone.
Lastly—and I am sorry because he spoke first—my noble friend Lord Howard championed small operators, which I was glad to hear, and queried the power of the Secretary of State to amend the threshold by way of secondary legislation. The Government are clear that the threshold we have proposed of 500 or more tied pubs is the right one, because it is designed to ensure that the Pubs Code and the market rent only option are targeted at the part of the market where we have a problem. However, legislation needs to be capable of responding to changes in the market that may come about in the longer term—for example, if new pub ownership models were to emerge that merited exclusion from all or part of the code.
I hope that we can agree the government amendments so that we have a base for further discussion ahead of, and on, Report. In view of the explanations I have given, I hope that noble Lords will not move their amendments.
The Earl of Lindsay
I am very much hoping that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that there are and have been instructive discussions with the Scottish Government on this point and that the dialogue with the Scottish Government has not come too late in the day for a co-ordinated cross-border approach, either via a Sewel Motion in this Bill or via parallel legislation introduced in Holyrood. Reassurance on these points is important in the context of this Bill, but it also has a wider importance.
Just last week, the Government published the document, Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement, in which they stressed that it was essential that there was effective intergovernmental working and close collaboration between the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments. That statement restated an important recommendation from the Smith commission report, published in November 2014. That, in turn, restated a central recommendation of the Calman commission in 2009, on which I sat. This is the reason for my interest in my noble friend being able to reassure us that there has been timely, constructive dialogue between London and Edinburgh on this Bill and on this particular point.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and for giving me the opportunity to say something about the application of these measures in Scotland. I am delighted to hear from my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I have discussed this matter with him and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, outside the Committee. The measures in Part 4 of the Bill apply to England and Wales only, of course. This is because regulation of tied pubs is a devolved matter in Scotland and it is for the Scottish Government to make their own legislation. Should they decide to legislate, they would not need any additional powers to be conferred by the UK Government.
My honourable friend Jo Swinson has recently written to the Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism encouraging the Scottish Government to consider bringing forward their own legislation in this area. My officials stand ready to assist as necessary. We understand that the Scottish Government have been engaging stakeholders from all sides of the debate and are considering whether there is evidence for a similar intervention in Scotland. I hope that the noble Lord will, therefore, accept that his amendment is not required.
Before I sit down, as this is the final day of the Committee, I should like to take a brief moment to put on record my thanks at the end of what—for some of us—has been a dry January, which has rightly ended with us talking about beer. First, I would like to thank all the patient Chairs of our Committee and those behind the scenes: Hansard, the clerks and the doorkeepers who have helped ensure our debates run smoothly and finish on time. I am also very grateful to my noble friends Lord Popat, Lord Newby and Lord Nash, on this side of the House, for their support in steering this Bill through Committee, and to my noble friend Lord Stoneham for being so loyal an attendee.
Furthermore, I would like to thank officials from the nine government departments who have been here to support the Government: BIS, the Treasury, HMRC, the Department for Education, UK Export Finance, DCLG, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Justice and DWP. We even talked about Gibraltar on the day that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, went missing and I would like to congratulate him on the refreshing new perspective he has brought to our work. I would also like to say how glad I was to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, back today. I know he has been ill and we have had great collaboration with him and his colleagues.
Most importantly, I thank the noble Lords opposite, and all noble Lords who have been involved in the Committee, for their contributions to our debates. We have scrutinised the Bill in full, with some good and thorough debate. I have welcomed the spirit of co-operation that has been apparent even today. This is a vital Bill because small businesses are the engine of Britain. This Bill will help them innovate, grow and compete in many ways—from prompt payment to access to Government contracts. I look forward to noble Lords’ support for the Bill in its remaining stages to ensure that it reaches the statute book this spring.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. On our amendment, all I would say is that between now and Report we will have some indication of where the Scottish Government are going, and we may well return to it in due course. At this stage, we would be very interested to hear her response.
I say from this side a strong thank you to the Chairmen, doorkeepers, officials, Hansard, and everyone else who has helped with these proceedings, and to colleagues for being such an interesting group in getting to grips with the Bill.
This is done in a spirit of co-operation. There are many occasions in politics where we are at daggers drawn, and many on which we find common cause. Sometimes we are in the middle. This is one where we are rather more towards one pole than the other. Our biggest criticism of the Bill is that it does not go far enough, but it would be churlish to say that that is a reason why we should not give it a great deal of co-operation. In that regard, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Popat, and the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their contributions to the debate. I hope that in the weeks we have, on some of the more interesting issues, we can continue that spirit of co-operation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
I draw attention to my interests recorded in the register and my connection to small businesses. This section of the Bill has our broad support. We welcome any attempt to reduce the burdens of reporting while maintaining the integrity and transparency required to make such registration effective. Clause 89 provides for a new filing requirement instead of the annual return. The new confirmation statement is outlined in some detail in the Bill. I am bound to say that I did not find the old annual return such a hardship, and I hope that I will feel the same with the new statement.
Amendment 54B is a probing amendment. It ensures that sanctions would be the same for companies that do not have and maintain a record of their PSCs and those that did not provide information to the public register. The intention of the amendment is to help to probe and to ensure that the information makes it to the register and can be used meaningfully. We would be grateful if the Minister will set out the thinking behind the difference between these two and why the enforcement is slightly different and provide us with an understanding of how the Government see the mechanisms for enforcement and how they will work over time.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for so graciously moving his amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his remarks. The confirmation statement in Clause 89 is a replacement for our friend the annual return to Companies House. It will contain important information about the company, in particular about the register of people with significant control, which we have just been debating.
Amendment 54B would increase the criminal penalties we provide for not filing a confirmation statement at Companies House. It is important that penalties should be sufficient to deter and sanction those who do not provide Companies House with a confirmation statement. However, I do not believe that increasing the penalty is necessary in this case, which I think is what the noble Lord may be seeking. Enforcement activity by Companies House is focused on ensuring that information is delivered to it and put on the public register in a timely way. Companies House sends reminders to the company in good time before the company is due to file the current annual return. If a company fails to deliver information, the first aim of Companies House is to seek compliance. In the event of continued non-compliance, Companies House prosecutes the company and its directors. Last year, Companies House prosecuted almost 2,000 companies for failing to file the annual return. This approach to enforcement works. Compliance rates for the annual return are currently running at 98%.
The penalties in Parts 7 and 8 are designed to be consistent with the level and approach of existing Companies Act penalties. The penalty for failing to deliver a confirmation statement to Companies House is equivalent to the existing penalty for failing to deliver an annual return. The Government do not consider that there is a case to increase these penalties. Of course, we take the failure to file information at Companies House extremely seriously. It is important that people should be able to obtain up-to-date information about companies with which they may wish to do business. A continuing failure to deliver a confirmation statement could incur a daily default fine of £500. This would quickly add up to a significant amount. I understand concern that there should be sufficient incentives to ensure that information about people with significant control is put onto the public register. In practice, however, we judge a prison sentence to be highly unlikely to be proportionate to failing to deliver a confirmation statement, even were the law to permit the judiciary to impose such a penalty. It is, of course, important that people should have confidence in the public register. When necessary, enforcement includes the prosecution of criminal activity. Consequently, we consider that the sanctions set out Clause 89 are sufficient. I hope that explanation helps to clarify issues and that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for the amendments in this group. He will perhaps be interested to know that we had a sweepstake to try to work out what he was getting at with these amendments. I am afraid we were not particularly successful, so I will make two or three comments on the amendments, which we looked at objectively in terms of the way that they had been drafted, and may take the opportunity to write to him afterwards to pick up some of the points, including the good points he made about rogue trading, which is a concern. The examples he drew our attention to were new to me. He asked what the Government are doing about repeat offenders in this area. The short answer is lots, including taking account of previous failures. The effect of Clause 103 will be to require the court to take misconduct and previous failures into account when deciding whether a director is unfit, especially where it demonstrates a pattern of unfit conduct through a number of companies.
Amendment 60C is in line with the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which I would like to express my gratitude for the consideration it has given this long and complex Bill in a timely manner. We must thank it for the great work it does in aiding scrutiny in this House. I will consider this amendment and will return to it on Report.
Amendment 60D would restrict the consideration a court must give to the loss or harm that a person’s conduct has caused to a company solely to non-executive directors when deciding whether to disqualify a director. The concept of non-executive director is not recognised within the Companies Act 2006 or the Company Directors Disqualification Act. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, will know only too well that for the purposes of companies legislation, all de jure directors are considered equally, whatever their role on the board may be. Any individual who acts as a director of a company, in whatever capacity, owes duties in respect of the running of the company to, for example, shareholders, employees and creditors. Accordingly, if the actions of any director, executive or not, have caused demonstrable loss for which they are culpable, it is right that they should be liable to be disqualified and that the period for which they are disqualified should take account of the resulting loss to creditors.
To try to change the law on directors fundamentally and to bring in a new definition of non-executive director without extensive consultation would be quite a big ask. I am not sure whether that is being sought in this probing amendment, but perhaps we can discuss the matter further. In the mean time, I commit to study the points that have been raised and to write to the noble Lord, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. We, too, had a sweepstake on what her responses were likely to be. I have not done badly on some and lost quite badly on others. We also had a sweepstake on what the further replies might be, although I shall not reveal them for fear of putting anyone in a difficult position. In view of the current circumstances and the very helpful replies, we look forward to discussing these matters further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe(9 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said, implementation is vital to put steel into this requirement. We know from our many contacts in the construction industry that many areas of business have a real concern to ensure that people given contracts are monitored. I hope that the Minister will at least take this away to consider it and respond promptly in due course. In particular, I have in my mind a lot of evidence that has come forward from the construction industry to say that people implementing the main contract do not always—frequently do not—pay the small business sector promptly.
I will say no more, because the noble Lord has made these points, but—to be brief and to the point— we must ensure implementation. I hope that the Minister will take this away and assure us that this implementation point will be considered, because I have heard this issue raised time and again over the years, as have many colleagues, particularly giving a contract to a main contractor and finding that suppliers to that main contractor do not get payment. Those suppliers are often small businesses, so I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for this amendment. As we discussed on previous days in Committee, prompt payment is an extremely important agenda and we wish to encourage both contracting authorities and businesses to pay their suppliers on time, so I shall say a little more, as noble Lords requested, about what we are planning to do in this area.
The Government are committed to leading by example on prompt payment. When we consulted on proposals to tackle prompt payment in autumn 2013, there was widespread support across industry and with procurers. This resulted, rightly, in a commitment to legislate. The new public contract regulations, which the Government plan to bring into force shortly, will place a duty on contracting authorities to pay their immediate suppliers in 30 days, and include terms in their contracts to pass these 30-day payment terms all the way down the public sector supply chain.
The regulations were consulted on last autumn and we intend to bring these into force early this year. That should provide reassurance to smaller businesses further down the supply chain that they will be paid expeditiously, and will address some of the findings of the National Audit Office report published last week, to which the noble Lord referred. I was about to cite the same figure that he cited: in a third of cases, public sector clients have taken more than 30 days to settle payment. That is completely unacceptable and that report helps to make the case for these regulations, which I hope will attract cross-party support. Our determination in this area cannot be doubted.
As part of these same public contract regulations, contracting authorities would also be required to publish the number of invoices paid late to their first-tier suppliers on an annual basis to show how they have performed in this area. The Government are committed to developing guidance to ensure that the reporting on late payment is understood and aids transparency.
Our mystery shopper service is strangely named, but it enables SMEs and other suppliers to raise concerns about public sector procurement with the Government and have it investigated. It is a Cabinet Office service and assists in ensuring that the contracting authorities comply with these new measures and will name and shame poor payers through the fortnightly publication of mystery shopper cases on GOV.UK. In future, the service will be able to ensure proactively that the 30-day payment policy is being embedded by carrying out spot checks on contracting authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked whether the Minister could commit to write to the main suppliers to ensure prompt payment. Yes, we would be happy for the Government to arrange for an appropriate Minister to write to the strategic suppliers about this before the end of the Parliament. We are talking about 100 or so suppliers. Those are the strategic suppliers to whom the noble Lord referred.
On monitoring and implementation, in view of the time I agree to write to the noble Lord to set out the arrangements. However, we believe that these reforms are the right way to address the prompt payment of suppliers in the public sector supply chain. I know that the position is a little curious—we have met the same issue in other legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I have debated—to have one set of regulations coming in under EU powers and then a domestic Act, but I am afraid that sometimes that has to be the way that we bring things forward, not least to make them happen in time. I hope that, if the noble Lord takes the two together, he will feel that we are approaching this in a sensible way and feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, for his support. I reinforce the point that we both made that while all the measures that we have talked about have our support and we do not oppose this area, we raised the matter to make sure that the policy is strongly and fully implemented. While some of the measures that were outlined concern talking to the first-tier suppliers, the sheer notion of being able to challenge people, hold them to account and ensure that they understand they will never escape questioning on this issue is the power that we are keen for the Government to consider further. We remain strongly supportive of the measure and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their amendments. I shall start by commenting on the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Eccles, who often causes us to pause in our legislative discussions. I am not sure whether he was present when we started this afternoon and I took the Committee through the rationale and explained how we plan to use the regulations. I am glad that he is planning to look at the draft regulations and I would be very happy to discuss them further with him if need be. The clause will provide the Government with the powers to make regulations that help small businesses bid for public sector contract opportunities that are currently worth £230 billion per annum. That is at the heart of our problem: as many noble Lords have asked this afternoon, how do we get the share of that cake up for small business? That is our common wish.
As for these amendments, I want to reassure the noble Lord that the Government are considering carefully the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but we also need to consider the implications for timely delivery. The Government are not yet convinced that it is necessary for the affirmative procedure to be used every time the power in this clause is used. Regulations about procurement have in the past been made under the negative procedure and some of the matters dealt with in regulations in this area are very technical and need to be adjusted over time.
Taking an example, the illustrative regulations we have recently published list a number of practical steps that could be taken; for example, on pre-procurement marketing. It may be necessary in the future to amend that list to describe new recommended forms of pre-market engagement. Is the affirmative procedure necessary or appropriate for every such change? Similarly, as the recently published Cabinet Office policy statement makes clear, regulations could be used in the future to prescribe minimum and maximum timescales. Would a modest change to one of those require the affirmative procedure?
We are actively considering these issues and what we can do to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny attaching to this clause, which is the purpose of this amendment. One option would be to have an affirmative resolution on the first occasion to set the strategy for the regulations, and negative thereafter. It would be good to understand how noble Lords feel about that.
Turning to Amendment 35Q, as we have debated in relation to previous provisions, the use of “may” instead of “shall” is standard practice in relation to drafting of this sort. Our intention is to issue guidance about the regulations and to publish it in a way that makes it accessible to contracting authorities and suppliers. I can reassure the Committee that, if the Government consider that guidance would help contracting authorities or others to understand the regulations, we are committed to issuing it. We will also implement—I think that this is called for, from the conversations we have had today—an extensive communications strategy prior to the implementation of the regulations in order to ensure that key messages are understood and embedded. That will appear on GOV.UK and be very accessible. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw these amendments and, clearly, I would be interested to discuss the issue of parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his observations and I apologise if I was not clear. The issue here, as was pointed out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is that there are no limits in the Bill on the kinds of duties relating to the exercise or procurement functions that can be imposed and it does not derogate the generality of that power. So there is a question about the breadth of that power and that is why there is great benefit in debating these things.
The committee, whose view we share, was also unconvinced by the arguments of the Government. If there is an issue about some of the technical aspects as described to the committee—the economic circumstances or elements where speed is of the essence—we would be more convinced if the Government were able to give more detail on the circumstances in which those would be applied. Given everything, it does not sound particularly compelling and we are in deep sympathy with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on that. In the circumstances, since it may be possible for the Minister to write to give us more details, I will use this opportunity to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his explanation of these amendments, which I hope I have understood, as I know that they are largely probing in nature. First, I turn to Amendment 33G, which would have the effect of limiting the champion to consider only appeals and complaints by small and micro-businesses. I suspect this is not his intention. It is true that larger businesses generally find it easier to navigate regulators’ appeals systems. That is why we call this policy the small business appeals champions or the small business champion—because the main benefits will fall on small and micro-businesses.
However, large businesses have problems with appeals, too, and fixing those problems can be beneficial in a broader way: smaller businesses having similar issues or facing similar burdens can benefit. It would be a mistake to exclude the experience of larger business entirely from the work of the champions. One can imagine a champion telling a business, “I’m sorry, but because you’ve got 51 staff, I can’t take any notice of the evidence of your problems within the regulators’ appeals system”. Clearly, that is not what we want. What we want is somebody of good quality who will come in and take a critical look at this important area.
Amendment 33K proposes that the guidance for the small business appeals champion should be laid before Parliament. I can tell the noble Lord that it is actually the Government’s intention to show the guidance to Parliament and I am content to consider his amendment further.
Amendments 33N and 33T seek to replace the term “smaller scale businesses” in the business impact target provisions with a cross-reference to the definitions of small and micro-businesses in Clauses 33 and 34. I understand the logic behind these amendments and recognise that use of a specific cross-reference might at first sight provide for a certain legislative coherence. However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary for the provisions in this part of the Bill to achieve their intended effect. The Government’s view is that, in the specific context of the content of the annual reports required under the business impact target provisions in Clauses 23 and 24, and the expertise of the independent verification body that will assess estimates of economic impact under the target provisions under Clause 25, the term “smaller scale business” is sufficiently clear.
The context for the use of the term “smaller scale business” here is very different from the purposes of the definitions which have been provided in Clauses 33 and 34. Those later definitions are being created to facilitate exemptions from regulations. To achieve that, the definitions need to be precise and workable at a detailed technical level. In contrast in this clause, we believe that the term “smaller scale businesses” is sufficiently clear for its own purposes.
The Government’s view is that in practice the term “smaller scale business” will be interpreted in accordance with the EU definition, which we discussed last week, and is therefore consistent also with the definitions provided for in Clauses 33 and 34. The EU SME definition is, of course, widely used on an administrative basis in the UK for a variety of purposes, including statistics, grants, and other policy contexts.
Moreover, the use of a broader descriptive term, rather than something more technical, clearly has advantages in terms of enabling a wide range of relevant issues to be included in the report without raising questions as to whether such issues are within the powers provided for in this clause. This ensures that the reporting can operate flexibly. Similar arguments apply in relation to the expertise of the independent verification body, which we will no doubt come on to discuss.
In addition, there are some legal issues with the operation of this amendment. The definitions in Clauses 33 and 34 are not complete and will require secondary regulations to make them function. While the headcount is defined on the face of the Bill, there are important financial definition criteria which have to be established under delegated powers. Such regulations will not be in place by the time that the target clauses are commenced and in operation—a technical point but I thought one worth making.
Amendment 33S would require the independent verification body to have expertise in the assessment of the impacts of regulation on small and medium-sized businesses, but not larger businesses. That is a narrowing of the current requirement set out in subsection (6) of Clause 25, which requires the independent verification body to have relevant expertise in assessing the economic impact of new regulation on all businesses, including smaller ones. The Government consider it vital that the verification body should have the expertise required appropriately to assess the economic impact of regulation across the full range of business. That is clearly particularly important for regulations that concern activities typically undertaken by large businesses—for example, large-scale manufacturing, or businesses with certain types of pension scheme. The findings of our current version of the independent verification body—the RPC—bring a great deal of light to regulatory proposals and often cause us to pause and ask whether something is good or bad regulation. We are trying to bring that good system on to the statute book in a way that attracts top-quality people to this body. We think that the wording in the Bill is right.
I thank the noble Lord for his probing amendments. There are good practical reasons why we have drafted the clauses in the way that we have. I hope that he has found my responses helpful, including my clarification on the amendment relating to Parliament, and will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
I thank the Minister and am very grateful for her response. While small businesses will be the disproportionate beneficiaries, and although some of these issues affect companies of different sizes, there is the potential for small businesses to be squeezed out in certain circumstances. I accept that the drafting is elegant, and certainly has a lot more legal validity than our amendments probably have. However, it is important to consider how the measure will operate in practice. I cannot help feeling that we may return to these issues time and time again as the relevant balance is difficult to achieve.
We are very encouraged by the Minister’s response on Amendment 33N. We will certainly take careful note of what she said and consider how the measure will operate. We are very grateful to her for her constructive response but will want to consider whether we are sufficiently reassured that the measure will disproportionately benefit small businesses—the Bill is about disproportionate benefit to small businesses—or whether we have lingering concerns that small businesses will again lose out—not completely, they will be beneficiaries—to other companies. In those circumstances, and given the Minister’s very helpful comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, in moving Amendment 33BC, I will speak also to Amendments 33BD and 33 BG. The amendments together would create a total of five definitions in UK law based on the measure of employee headcount. We are trying to introduce the definition of a micro-business, meaning a business with one to nine employees, a small business, meaning a business with 10 to 49 employees, a medium-sized business, meaning a business with 50 to 249 employees, a large business, meaning a business with a headcount of 250 to 1,000, and a super corporate, meaning those with in excess of 1,000 employees.
We very much support the thrust of the clause, and it is excellent to have a proper definition to work with. Our amendment seeks to establish a richer and, in our view, better way to define the different type of businesses. The basic argument for it is pretty compelling. We understand the need to make regulations and legislation as effective an operation as possible. Defining in law what is meant by the terms “small business” and “micro business” will make it possible for future Governments of any colour to exempt enterprises of that nature from new regulatory obligations. In addition, it can help to target particular elements of policy and support to the required businesses.
The definitions are based on the European Commission’s recommendation, which defines micro, small and medium-sized businesses by employees, turnover and balance sheet total—definitions which are already widely in use on an administrative basis. There are arguments to be had about the relative merits of headcount versus turnover and how to blend those numbers. It is widely acknowledged that it will not be straightforward to embrace everything cleanly with those definitions. It ends up as a complex Venn diagram landscape of connected definitions.
Nevertheless, there is a great attraction to making it as simple but sophisticated as possible. We believe that this five-group classification achieves that. It is of course accepted that the definitions are always imperfect, and that turnover is a factor in the size of a business. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to take a broader view than the Bill currently does.
The great merit of the Bill is its defined and single purpose: to focus on small businesses. Our challenge is that it does not go far enough, but we accept—to paraphrase—that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. We believe that we should not stop to congratulate ourselves on starting the journey but remain focused on the future.
Here, we have a chance to do something with our amendment. Other places which have for a long time had very focused small business policy and even agencies are today looking at how they use definitions better to deal with the problems that we are debating now. The Bill represents a chance for us to address matters of the future.
Governments and policymakers in general have always had difficulty in improving the efficiency of markets in which small businesses operate. It is easy to use measures to deal with monopolies, oligopolies and so on, but in the markets in which small businesses operate it is very different. The Government’s role in relation to small businesses is naturally to consider how to establish political and economic stability, how government spending can trigger markets, setting interest rates in different places, forms of regulation, but also—and decisively—the role of market catalyst. Among the measures and levers that the Government have, it is important to recognise the diverse needs, aspirations and potential of businesses.
Small businesses are a key source of jobs in any economy. There are those start-ups which will have the ambition to become global players and will recruit in great numbers, but most small companies are small and will stay that way. Tax credits for hiring new workers are of great importance to a company on the threshold of a decision on whether to increase by one more employee or a small number. For aggressive start-ups with great confidence and belief in the future, the high-growth culture will make them more concerned about visas, immigration and the condition of education.
It is not just about growth. There are also great distinctions between companies relating to their ages and their relative requirements based on how long they have been in business and the challenges that they have had. Providing policy incentives, encouragement and exhortation can be done better if the type of business can be defined better. That is even now a strong debate in places such as the United States, with the Small Business Administration, and in other places where they have had long-standing agencies to target small businesses. Today, they are looking at further definitions to ensure that their measures can be as targeted and effective as possible.
In our view, this welcome area of the Bill would be strongly enhanced by richer and fuller definition. Even if the relevant measures are not introduced at this stage, there is no doubt that such definitions would help us to design much better policy in the future. In this context, I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that the Government have considered the Bill’s drafting not just in terms of 2015 but with regard to the future, and can assure us that the policy measures can be appropriately constructed to target different subsections of the small business community. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking us back to the question of definitions in the Bill, which we have already discussed, and for setting out in a wide-ranging speech some of the logic behind his position. I shall read that with great interest when I have a little bit more time to reflect. I would like to go through the amendments that the noble Lord has tabled, which I think are to some extent probing in nature, and explain why we have done things the way that we have.
First, I turn to Amendments 33BC and 33BD. The Government are establishing definitions which will be broadly consistent with the European Commission’s, as I have said before. These definitions are widely used in the UK, and so by following the approach taken by the Commission, we will keep life simple for businesses. We are establishing statutory definitions of small and micro-businesses for a specific purpose, which is to help mitigate disproportionate burdens on smaller businesses, including community and voluntary bodies, by facilitating exemptions or other more proportionate treatment in new secondary legislation. We need to define small and micro-businesses clearly in order to exempt them from regulations where appropriate.
This policy intention explains why these definitions are different from those we have heard in previous provisions of this Bill. These definitions need to be precise enough for businesses to know whether they are covered by certain regulations or not. The rationale for the definitions is clear. It costs a small business 10 times more per employee, on average, to comply with regulations than it costs a large business—that is an interesting statistic to add to the noble Lord’s list. In contrast, medium-sized and larger businesses do not suffer from the same level of disproportionate burdens. For instance, those businesses are more likely to have access to specialist regulatory expertise. It would surely, therefore, be unfair to exempt larger businesses from certain regulations without also exempting smaller businesses. There is, therefore, no need to include larger businesses in these definitions.
The Government are committed to reducing regulatory burdens on all businesses, including medium-sized and large businesses, but the specific purpose of these proposals is to mitigate the disproportionate burdens that are most acute. I hope that the Committee can agree that, based on our policy intention, extending the definitions to include medium-sized and larger businesses is not required, and, indeed, could undermine the strong focus on mitigating burdens where they are most severe.
Turning to the detail of the definitions, I welcome the noble Lord’s support for the use of headcount. However, as he said, financial criteria can be an important adjunct to staff headcount in order to reflect the true scale of a business, and therefore the extent to which it suffers from burdens. If a business has the resources of larger businesses, those resources will mean that it is unlikely to suffer from the same disproportionate burdens, even if its headcount is relatively low. For example, such a business would be able to buy in specialist expertise to assist with compliance. For these reasons, in my view it would not be right for them to be treated as a small or micro-business for the purposes of this definition.
As regards Amendment 33BG, which I regard as probing as the noble Lord did not explore it, this Government believe that it is appropriate for the small and micro-business regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. The regulations will make detailed, highly technical provisions, which may require periodic minor changes. For example, the financial thresholds could need to be updated in line with EU definitions. I welcome the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee accepted the Government’s judgment on this issue. I know that the House has great confidence in the views of that committee.
I am grateful for the debate on these provisions, and for the support that we have heard for the Government’s intentions in relation to small and micro-businesses. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Digital Technology: UK Labour Market
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, my noble friend puts it perfectly. All noble Lords just need to use GOV.UK to see the extraordinary improvements that have been made.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, many homes and businesses still lack access to basic broadband, especially in rural communities. Despite the Government’s strategy and commitment of £1.2 billion, the programme will be completed 22 months late. Can the Minister assure us that the rural communities will not be placed at an ongoing disadvantage in the current distribution of broadband, and in any future similar plan?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, as someone who used to campaign for the rollout of broadband, I am glad to say that good progress is now being made in the rollout of superfast broadband. In November, 1.5 million premises had access to it, and the number of homes and premises gaining access has doubled from 20,000 per week to 40,000 per week in August. Rural broadband has had a special scheme, which has allowed an extraordinary degree of investment in some very important rural areas, including Northumberland, where I holidayed, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Cumbria.
Consumer Rights Bill
Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Baroness Neville-Rolfe(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on introducing this amendment and on her very thoughtful and persuasive speech.
I have an interest to declare. Two of my sons have severe nut allergies. I can still recall when the elder of the two suffered his first anaphylactic shock. He was almost five years-old and had never been diagnosed with an allergy. I think it is almost certainly the case that were it not for the fact that it occurred on a cruise liner with appropriately trained staff available and with the right supplies, our son would have died. My personal experience tells me how fortunate you can be.
The amendment does not ask airlines to guarantee a peanut-free or nut-free flight—no airline could or would ever give such a guarantee—but it does ask airlines to provide a reduction in the risks and to provide safe alternatives. The amendment addresses the key issue of the risk of a major incident on board, and what can be done to minimise that risk.
Let me set out the considerations and context for our views on this issue. First, this is an appropriate measure to be under consideration. We are, naturally, in favour of airlines being responsible and taking reasonable and proportionate steps to protect passengers. Secondly, we also consider that the amendment, while referring to allergies in general, is particularly focused on a distinct and significant area. Most allergic reactions present with mild or moderate symptoms. However, anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that is potentially life-threatening. It is a medical emergency that requires immediate treatment, hospitalisation and observation for up to six hours.
Thirdly, there are very significant increases in diagnosed allergies and the trend line is continuing to rise. Surveys showed that an increase was initially seen in countries such as the UK, Europe and USA, but can now be found in all countries undergoing industrial development. The pattern of allergy is also changing and the distribution of those facing severe allergies is becoming increasingly widespread. I would be grateful if the Minister had some data she could share on the prevalence in the UK—especially in comparison with other OECD countries and how the Government project the likely incidence of such allergies and the trend line towards the future.
Fourthly, there is a clear and distinct problem with air travel. The very nature of the reaction and the treatment requirements mean that an anaphylactic incident is likely to cause a flight to change its route to meet the medical emergency. In the recent incident referred to by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the flight to New Jersey was compelled to return to Dublin to ensure that proper medical attention was received. The elevated level of risk caused by being airborne means that air travel should be considered as distinct from other environments. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us with any information the Government have on the number, severity and location of incidents; whether they have had any discussions with other countries on providing an exchange of information; and whether they have any information on the costs associated with plane diversions, or the department’s assessment of the performance of airlines in dealing with incidents.
Fifthly, there are risks that, while they can never be eliminated, could be managed better and where public policy expressed through legislation could help to encourage this. More can be done to ensure that allergy sufferers are not put at risk by particles, or even though the provision of food on the airline. Reasonable management measures and appropriate provision of meals and the like are deliverable. Providing obligations would mitigate the mistakes that can sometimes occur, both with ingredients and provision, in the way that airlines currently treat this condition.
Sixthly, the current advice and guidance places great burdens on passengers, who do have a responsibility—and I suspect that were it not for their vigilance we would be conscious of many more incidents. Advice and guidance are inconsistent between airlines and in particular in airlines’ implementation. There are a number of useful guidance notes and codes, but implementing simple data-capture arrangements, amending contracts with suppliers and introducing compliance checks within the existing oversight of food suppliers—as well as arranging for the effective management of the cabins and the provision of alternatives—seems to be proportionate, readily implementable and not highly fiscally challenging. The fact that some airlines do some of these things already would suggest that they are all able to do so. Can the Minister provide us with more details on how the airlines and her department view the deliverability and affordability of such changes?
I would also be grateful if the Minister could provide the department’s assessment of the guidance notes that are available and in use, and what evaluation or commentary there has been on their continuing practicality or previous effectiveness. Has the Minister’s department held any recent discussions on how they might be improved? What evidence have they received from third parties on their strengths and weaknesses?
Finally, there are already some moves towards legislation and regulation in other parts of the world. I understand that the US Department of Transportation started to look at banning nuts on planes in 2010 and has commissioned, or has called for, peer-reviewed scientific data on these matters. Have the Government discussed this with other international parties—specifically the US Department of Transportation—and have they independently sought and reviewed scientific data on these matters? Do they have any more thinking on the current position in America and on the current thinking of the Department of Transportation? In addition, the New Jersey Senate passed a resolution concerning nuts on planes. Has the Minister any information on the measures it has introduced and on any evaluation on their effectiveness?
It would also be very helpful to know what other authorities, experts and models the Government consider it would be appropriate to consider, and, in addition, whether such moves in countries where incidence is lower than our own is a strong indicator that action and acceptance of the amendment would be appropriate now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for raising this issue and for tabling the amendment. I am delighted to be able to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, who I have known for some years, to his maiden contribution at the Dispatch Box, and thank him for bringing his expertise and family experience to this important debate on this very important subject. He is most welcome to our deliberations.
I am very sympathetic to the intention of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, which seeks to relieve the suffering of those with allergies. As she said, allergic reactions can be very distressing to those who experience them, not least in the confines of an aircraft cabin, where it can be particularly scary. I know that no carrier would wish that to occur on its services. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for sharing her experience on another troubling issue, deep vein thrombosis, and her knowledge of travel filters and air exchanges, which are an important technological part of the debate that we are having today.
I assure the Committee that industry practice is for carriers to request passengers to pre-notify prior to travel if they have any medical conditions, including allergies, and that most passengers do so. Most airlines will then take all reasonable measures to prevent passengers from having an allergic reaction while on board the aircraft. I know that, where given prior notice—and that is an important duty for us as passengers—airlines take steps, such as broadcasting requests to passengers not to eat nuts.
For some allergies, a carrier is unlikely to be able to guarantee an environment totally free of the trigger substance. For example, an aircraft may have been used by another carrier only hours previously, other passengers may bring their own food with them which can contain a trigger substance, or a passenger may be accompanied by an assistance dog, which may be a source of allergic reaction for some people.
I note that the amendment is specific both to airlines and to allergies. While I appreciate that there is a distinction, which the noble Lord has explained, the amendment would place a duty on airlines that is not placed on operators of any other modes of transport such as trains, ships, buses or taxis, or the airport operator responsible for the airport environment. However, there may well be steps that operators in those modes could take to reduce the risk of a person with an allergy having an attack during their journey. Furthermore, there may well be conditions other than allergies where an operator could take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of an attack during the journey—for example, photosensitive epilepsy. Moreover, the majority of airlines already do what the amendment would create a duty for them to do.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this issue to our debate, but I do not think that we can justify the addition of this regulation to the Bill. I will ensure that the remarks made on the subject today are conveyed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and that the points that have been made are considered. I shall also ask the department to pass the comments to British Airways because of the examples that she cited. I know from my own extensive experience of travelling that the company always seems very keen to provide a good service. As the noble Lord said, good management systems make a very big difference in these sorts of cases.
I was interested in the good practice outlined by the noble Baroness and, as I said, in the experiences of my noble friend Lady Wilcox, and in the international developments that have been mentioned, which I was not aware of. I also commend to the Committee the advice that the charity Anaphylaxis Action gives on its website to those with allergies when they travel by air. That advice includes stating their needs to carriers, discussing their proposed flight with their GP or specialist and, if concerned, taking their own food and medication, such as antihistamines or an adrenaline auto-injector, when they fly. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.