Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: HM Treasury
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Main Page: Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan's debates with the HM Treasury
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
Does this website cover the plethora of information sources which the noble Baroness has spent the last six or seven minutes identifying? In some respects, the report is just another tome gathering dust, but if we can have a website that is regularly updated and is accessible to the general public, as it were, perhaps that would go some way towards creating a report by other means.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for his helpful intervention. Indeed, like him, I feel that we need greater awareness of the potential of GOV.UK and the internet for communicating with business, especially small business, in a much simpler and easier way. That is exactly Matthew Hancock’s intention. The plan is that this website, if it does not do so already, will cover all the sorts of things that you are talking about. Do have a look at it and if you feel there are other things that we should do, I am sure that we can. I am sorry about the parliamentary impropriety of referring to the noble Lord as “you”.
That brings me to a couple of final points. Just last month, which is a year since the publication of Small Business: GREAT Ambition, we announced that we had met a large commitment in that document by launching the Business Growth Service, joining up all of our support available for those businesses that have the right level of ambition, capability and capacity to improve and grow. So we are making progress with this overall and trying to bring together the offer for small business, which I feel is a theme that we will probably agree on in the course of this Committee.
The House can look forward next month to a report by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, the Prime Minister’s adviser on enterprise, who will produce his definitive paper on what impact the last five years of government work has had on small businesses in this country. I will ensure that interested Lords receive a copy.
Therefore, while I fully agree with the intention behind the amendments, I agree with my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft that we have enough reports. I do not believe that it is necessary to achieve the outcome that the noble Lord seeks in the way that he has proposed. I hope that he has found some reassurance from my lengthy explanation and is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, I should declare an interest as president of the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group, which is an umbrella trade association in the construction industry. Something like 95% of the businesses in construction employ fewer than 10 people. They are often the weathervane of the British economy, you might say, in so far as they are the first to lay off people and often among the last to get started again.
In a supply chain, small businesses are extremely vulnerable to the problems of payment. In some respects, they are probably not that concerned about the bureaucratic burdens that the people who are not paying them money are going to have to face as a consequence of the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has so eloquently spoken in favour of. I start with that premise, but I make the additional point that regulation is a pain in the neck for the people who undertake bad practice. The rest of the people have nothing to fear from it; the other businesses do not have problems with it. We know that there are always examples of unintended consequence, but if that were the reason why we did not do something, we would never do anything in this House or the other place. I think that it is necessary to have some form of discipline to bring people into line.
One of the great disasters of this Government has been the Green Deal. Noble Lords may recall that this was going to be the mechanism whereby houses would be insulated and new central heating would be made available, and it would all be paid for out of the energy savings, which would then be deducted from households’ energy bills—it would pay for itself. One reason why that did not get off the ground was that among the promoters were to be a number of supermarkets, whose record in late payment was such that the people in the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group said, “We wouldn’t touch that with a barge pole. If their payment terms are of the order of 100 days, we don’t want to have anything to do with them”. This early example of a government-led scheme foundering was down to a lack of trust on the part of those small business men—people such as the electrical contractors, the small plumbers, the lads who do the central heating—who were not prepared to enter into agreements with those companies that had a dreadful record of slow payment. The Government have to look at the reasons for some of their own disappointments—I will not put it any more strongly than that.
On supply chains, I credit the Government for following on from what Peter Mandelson started when he was in BIS in trying to ensure that government contracts were paid within 30 days. Part of the problem was, of course, that the main contractor got paid but the money never trickled down the supply chain. That was one of the difficulties and it still exists—which is why the Federation of Small Businesses and other groups are extremely distrustful of the blandishments of Governments of any complexion, because in so many instances they have not been properly thought through.
If we are to have a more transparent and more effective means of securing payment in a prompt way, I cannot see that that is a problem. It may be embarrassing when big companies are named and shamed, but I do not necessarily think that that is a bad thing. We have seen this with those companies which we now know do not pay their taxes in the United Kingdom. Many of us are no longer consumers of Starbucks products. What they do is legitimate—it is just that the law is not very satisfactory here—but we have a choice as consumers, and we choose not to go there.
A lot of people would find it quite embarrassing if the companies that they regard as being good suppliers and trustworthy companies are found to be squeezing these small, vulnerable businesses. When we talk about cash flow in respect of these businesses, we are talking about perhaps somewhere between £5,000 and £25,000—about two or three weeks’ work. It is that kind of thing. We talk about support for small businesses, but they are not philanthropic institutions. They exist in order to do a job of work for which they will be promptly paid, so that they can then pass on that money to their employees.
This is an important set of amendments. It does not matter if, at the end of the day, the Minister says that the wording is wrong. That is the standard reply to any debate at Committee stage: “We like the principle but we don’t like the wording”. The Minister has a plethora of civil servants there who can give the wording and draftspeople who can do the business. Therefore, I do not think, at this stage, that that is a satisfactory response, if I can anticipate what the Minister will say.
I will finish on one last point. I have been at this game a wee while now, and the default for opposition draftsmen of amendments is that wherever you find a “may”, you make it into a “shall”. After May of this year, the tables will be reversed and a number of noble Lords will be learning the ropes of opposition. I have to say that it is not a particularly pleasant job—I had 18 years of it and it was pretty hellish. The point I am really getting at here is that it is a sign of intent. If the Government are serious about one of the fundamentals of the assistance to small business, it is making sure that these small businesses get paid by the larger businesses for which they have undertaken to do work at a fixed price within a reasonable time. They are entitled to no less than that. That is what this suite of amendments from this side of the House, in my view, is designed to do.
There are imperfections in these amendments, but their intention is quite clear. I would like to think that we are not that far away from the Government on this issue. This has to be a consensual matter if we are going to have a continuous industrial strategy that we can all sign up to.
Lord Cotter
Before the Minister replies, I will just follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said. From his experience, the down-the-line payment is a very important point indeed. It is increasingly incumbent upon government, when it gives contracts to the big contractors, to ensure in some way or other—although we do not want to bring too much regulation in—that these large contractors are monitored in terms of their payment record when it comes to subcontractors. The smaller businesses supplying or helping the main contractor frequently, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said from his experience, suffer badly because they do not get the payment. The large contractor in that case should not be given contracts in the future if it does not have some form of checking or commitment to ensure that it pays small businesses in the proper manner that is required.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 12, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn. I declare an interest in that my wife is a solicitor who deals with construction contracts.
It was a surprise to me to discover that at any one time, according to recently released figures, about £3 billion is outstanding within the construction industry by way of cash retentions. This figure represents the aggregate of monies which have ultimately been provided by small businesses, ostensibly as security in the event they do not return to remedy any defects in their work. I suspect that this process is taken from domestic situations; we are all aware of the problems that can be caused when one tries to get a rogue trader or contractor back to remedy faulty work.
However, in a commercial setting, the situation is surely different. It appears that the main motive for deducting retentions is to enhance the working capital of the party deducting them. Using the FOI Act, the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group recently carried out research among public bodies of the use made of cash retentions. It found that 71% of those surveyed added cash retentions to their working capital or admitted that they actually reinvested them while they waited for the evolution of the work process being undertaken by the contractor. The effect is that bodies that are commissioning work are also borrowing from the small firms that are carrying out the work. That is counterproductive to good economic activity at a time when such firms are also having major problems in accessing finance.
The key issue is that cash retentions are being deducted from payments already earned. They are handed over on condition that they are returned only unless they are used to remedy defects in the event that the firm does not do so. However, this is a very unsatisfactory situation, as in the mean time there is no protection for the retained money that will ensure that they will be available for release if, in the event, there are no uncompleted remedial works. We think that there is a good case for any retention funds to be kept separate from working capital and we suggest that there should be some form of trust in which these amounts are held.
These issues apply of course all the way down the supply chain. It is obviously true that for public sector works, small firms operating directly with the public sector are unlikely to see that body go bust, although it is not unknown. However, if they are dealing with private companies that are themselves contracted by the public sector, the firms further down the supply chain are at risk of losing their retentions if their top supplier, for instance, becomes insolvent. On the other hand, a tier-one supplier at the top level does not carry this risk because it will be working with bodies that are unlikely to become insolvent.
Of course, the business department has a construction supply chain payment charter, which was launched on 22 April 2014. In it is expressed the wish that these retentions should be abolished, which, I think, is good news. However, unfortunately the proposal is to wait until 2025. Governments have long aspirations and wide horizons but to wait another 10 years for such an obvious piece of legislation seems a little otiose. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond she can explain exactly why the delay is there and what it is for.
If it were possible for the Government to accept our amendment, this would begin to move us down the process. In particular, if it were appropriate to ensure that money held on retention was, in fact, placed in trust, separate from the working capital of the companies that were involved in it, that would certainly have the advantage of reducing the risk to those lending their money to those commissioning it. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State, through regulation, to be better informed about the extent of the problem and then to issue regulations when the appropriate time came. In this case, we are quite happy for this to be a “may” and not a “shall” provision.
If the amendment is accepted, it will have far-reaching benefits for small businesses throughout the construction industry. It will enable them to provide more jobs and increase their training provisions, and investees in resources will help to improve policy and the timeliness of delivery. How could we be against that? I beg to move.
Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan
I support the amendment and my noble friend. In 2002, I was the chair of a Select Committee that looked at retentions. At the time, it achieved a degree of notoriety in so far as, once the six weeks had elapsed, we got a letter from the department—I should say from the Minister, even though he was a member of the Government of my own party—but frankly it was not worth the paper it was written on. It was the most feeble response on this issue. Therefore, perhaps uncharacteristically, I am not here today to make party points, because my lot were as bad as the other lot. However, the fact was that the civil servants were somewhat uncomfortable when we took them word by word through their communication. Eventually, with them having a second bite at the cherry, we got a rather better ministerial response.
Given the glacial speed at which this matter has been dealt with by the respective Governments, it was not a surprise but a matter of some satisfaction that in 2014 we had the question of retentions being dealt with included in the fair payment charter. Both sides have already spoken today about culture change but 23 years to secure a culture change on a matter as fundamental as payment seems to be a rather relaxed, laid-back approach to this issue. While there is always more rejoicing in heaven when one sinner repenteth—and there seem to be a number of sinners repenting on this issue at the moment—the fact is that the bus to Damascus is taking a lot longer to arrive than it should.
Therefore, I encourage the Minister to look afresh at the dates. The payment charter was important and a significant advance but I do not think that we should rest on our laurels in this respect. A number of businesses are short-changed as a matter of course because of retentions and it is indefensible that the public sector should be part of that. On the other hand, it is almost inevitable because 40% of all construction work in the United Kingdom is paid for by the state in one way or another, whether by local government, the health service or those authorised to do so by other people. There is even a fair amount of work carried out at the behest of regulatory bodies which, although independent of the state, are nevertheless instruments of the state in one way or another.
We should not underestimate the significant contribution that could be made by a Government prepared to increase the pace of change here. While the advance that has been made in the past two or three years in terms of payment generally is to be applauded, this most pernicious form of payment retention cannot be justified. It has been said that this is a means of regulating bad practice, but it is a most unsatisfactory one. There was a time when the supply chain was a somewhat feisty, disagreeable means of doing business, where there was quite considerable ill feeling between relative tiers of that chain. That is no longer the case but a significant minority of businesses is still prepared to hold on to money that legitimately should be given to people who have fulfilled their work.
We could go into anecdotal evidence of this kind of practice. For example, the people who prepare the foundations for a building project are very often still waiting to get paid because the car park turf has not yet been laid. They have long departed the site and finished their work but are still waiting because the project is not completed. That kind of sharp practice should not occur in an efficient economy or decent society. I would like to think that the Minister had a bit of scope here, could take this amendment away and, if it is not quite to her needs, do something more with it. If I were to individually ask the Members of this Committee whether they agree with this practice, think it contributes to the efficiency of the British economy or even think it is fair, they would probably answer that “No” is the only answer. It is not fair and it does not promote economic efficiency. It enhances distrust between sectors of an industry where this Government and their predecessors, through the appointment of a chief adviser on construction and the like, have been trying to bring the parties together to get them to have a concerted approach—that is, the management, unions and various sectors of the industry. As long as we have this kind of practice, we will not have the trust that lies at the heart of an industry that can do so much but sometimes falls at the first hurdle. The first hurdle of any business is payment, as we have said already today.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friends in this amendment. My experience is really only in the construction industry but there may be issues that are general to other areas where there are a large number of subcontractors. In construction, the retention system—if we can call it that—is about 100 years old, but in practice it is positively medieval. It is holding back money owed for work that has been done and completed. There seems to be little or no recourse because, if a subcontractor tries to take on the principal contractor in public through the legal system, they suddenly find that the work dries up.
I know for a fact someone who is owed £1 million by a principal contractor. After several months and being told that the accounting system had changed—a very common thing to be told—he was then informed that if he paid £50,000 up front, he would get his money. I know another company with a turnover of £45 million that wrote in last November: it has retention outstanding of £762,000. In some cases, as my noble friend Lord O’Neill said, people have to wait for so long for areas that are completely extraneous to their own work, and wait for years until—sometimes—the main contractor has gone out of business and they do not get their money. This encourages a bullying culture: a clamping down from the top so that undercapitalised principal contractors squeeze the next layer down.
That has implications—which is where I come in, if you like—for the way that building workers are treated. They are the ones who, in the end, have to pay for all of this. We as taxpayers have to pay, of course, for failed companies and lost hope and opportunities, but building workers are paying for a system that really ought to be reformed. This proposal is long overdue. Germany manages without such a system, as does Japan. We do not need this system, rather we need a fair system where money goes into a bank on trust and is paid out automatically on the satisfactory completion of a particular tranche of work. That is not a lot to ask for. The noble Baroness opposite talked about culture change, and I agree that that is extremely important. But the only way in which that is going to be done is by making some of these pernicious practices illegal.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 12 on the important matter of retention payments and for initiating an interesting and important debate. Although his proposed new clause is very widely drafted, it is clear from our discussions that the focus is actually on the construction sector. The Government are clear that there are a number of issues with the payment culture in the construction industry. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for adding her reflections. Retentions are clearly part of that wider culture. We believe that we are most likely to make progress by dealing with the wider picture rather than focusing on specific details; namely, looking to address the cause rather than the symptoms. That is why we are working with the industry on a number of fronts.
These include the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as amended in 2011, which sets out a statutory framework governing contractual terms on payment. This introduces some basic rights such as the prohibition of so-called “pay-when-paid” clauses and the right to adjudication; that is, a contractual dispute resolution process, which I think we have agreed in other debates in this Room is very important. Recognising the importance of Government in this game because we are such a big customer, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, mentioned, we are using procurement to introduce innovative new practices in our own operations such as the use of so-called “project bank accounts” which will change the payment dynamic on construction projects by facilitating payments directly to sub-contractors. These are a form of escrow account which holds the money that is used to pay sub-contractors as work is completed and is not dissimilar to the trust idea mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
We are also working with the industry through its Construction Leadership Council and the Institute of Credit Management to implement a payment charter that contains 11 commitments, including one specifically to remove the need for retentions. As we have heard, Amendment 3 aims to introduce a power to impose a reporting requirement on the narrow practice of retaining money, mainly because of concerns about the construction industry. We do not believe that this is necessary. The Government are already able to include a new obligation to report on retention practices through the powers we are taking in this Bill. That deals with the reporting part.
I turn now to the underlying substance of retentions. We are also working with industry through the Construction Leadership Council to move to a position where retentions are no longer necessary by 2025, which is of course an end date. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that removing retentions needs to go hand in hand with defect-free work, particularly on one-off contracts.
Supply arrangements in construction are often project based, frequently short term and can involve payments for partially completed and therefore hard to value work. Clients need some sort of guarantee that, should defects emerge within a reasonable period—and it can be as much as 12 to 24 months, although on one’s own private building work at home it is usually about six months—there has to be some remedy. Retentions were the way devised for dealing with this, and to move forward a workable alternative has to be found. I suspect that that may be something to do with the long timescales that we see here. Moreover, we are seeking evidence on the prevalence of this issue in other sectors beyond construction—but also in construction itself—in the stakeholder groups and on the payment terms consultation that I mentioned in the previous discussion. So we will have a better idea of what the current situation is and how the changes that we propose on the reporting of payment terms and timescales will affect matters, not only in construction but elsewhere. That will help to establish the need for further government action. On this basis, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
The Minister made the point that, as the main customer, the Government have started a number of projects with project bank accounts. Before we get to the next stage, could she provide us with an indication of which departments are entering into this? My understanding is that it is fairly patchy and that some departments—for example, the Ministry of Defence—have been somewhat less than enthusiastic about changing their procurement practices. It would be helpful if we could get a picture of what is actually happening. I know that it is limited and I am not going to criticise the Government for the size of the operation; it is about the number of departments that are willing to participate. That is as important as anything. Some of them seem to be enthusiastic while others are a bit less so. It would be useful to find out, and it might even help if we named and shamed them.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, one of the pleasures of this Bill is that I already deal with eight government departments. This will increase the list, and I shall certainly take away that request and write to the noble Lord.