Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my small business interests, as set out in the register. I welcome the chance to speak on this Bill for the first time, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. Most of all, I thank the Minister for his introduction, his previous engagement and the genuine expertise that he brings to this subject.

I begin by reaffirming the support of these Benches for the broad provisions of the Bill. Industrial strategy must allow smaller businesses to both survive and compete with larger firms, so entrenching good payment practices, tackling asymmetry in the construction industry and increasing the powers of the Small Business Commissioner are all sensible aims.

A number of interesting questions have been raised on late payment terms, specifically around the 45-day and 60-day limits. Good questions addressing this issue were asked by my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Holmes, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. But I would like to press on this: the new payment term must inevitably be balanced against the ability of businesses to arrange their finances and pay. To assist the House, could the Minister outline the trade-offs between the 45-day and 60-day payment limits, which have already been considered in the decisions taken in the Bill?

I note, for example, that the impact assessment suggests that 350,000 more small businesses might be caught by a change from 60 to 45 days. Can the Minister confirm that those numbers are roughly correct? Has the impact assessment or any assessment that the Minister has seen looked at precisely what the financial impact of that would be for those businesses? I can see merit in both sides of the argument, but it would help the House to understand the logic behind the conclusions that have been made.

I also understand the logic behind a timeframe for resolving disputes. Businesses that delay payments should not be able to raise a dispute within the timeframe and then delay payment indefinitely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has just noted. The existence of this possibility undermines the principle behind the new deadline for raising disputes. That said, I am cautious about the impact of a deadline on resolving disputes. The value of payment disputes that will fall under Clause 7 will have a very large range, so enacting an arbitrary timeframe of, say, 14 days would disincentivise large disputes being brought forward and divert resources towards ensuring they get resolved within the deadline. There is a risk of creating a bottleneck around whichever the dispute deadline would be. However, I recognise the worry associated with an open-ended resolution timeline, so if the noble Baroness and the Minister believe that this worry can be reconciled with my reservations, I would be very happy to work with them as the Bill progresses.

I take this opportunity to repeat the concern my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral raised about the scrapping of retention payments, which we otherwise support. In their impact assessment, the Government stated that they would seek to remedy the removal of this insurance option by

“working with industry to find other ways of making sure construction suppliers provide a good service”.

That is surely the right approach. Purchasers must have available means to seek redress in the case of defects or defaults, a point ably argued by the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie. This is particularly the case in the public sector, as public money must have adequate protection against underperforming workmanship. I hope the Minister can today update the House on the steps taken with the industry towards providing that assurance. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, noted, other public bodies and various public authorities, in particular, local authorities, can be habitual late payers. Public bodies must set an example when they are the ones driving reform. Can the Minister outline how the Government intend to cut back on late public payments? Can he also set out a timeline for phasing out public retention payments, perhaps before the three-year transition period culminates? There are a number of questions around this subject that deserve answers.

I also look forward very much to the debates on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which had considerable merit. The noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Clevedon, also raised some very good points about retention payments re-emerging as something else, so I look forward to the Minister’s views on what might be done to prevent that state of affairs developing.

I would also like to pick up on a point made by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley on the definitions of micro, small, medium and large businesses. The Bill uses the Procurement Act 2023, alongside giving the Secretary of State powers to make definitions, but my noble friend is right to point to the Companies Act 2006, alongside the use of less complex entities by standard setters, not to mention the Enterprise Act 2016 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which all use variations of definitions that essentially describe the same thing.

I would be grateful if the Minister reassured the House that the regulation-making power in Clause 3(7) will not be used further to deviate from any of the existing definitions of businesses. Perhaps more optimistically, does the Bill not present a chance to standardise the definitions of different sized businesses? We should use this opportunity to think about how we fundamentally categorise businesses, especially as low-headcount, high-turnover tech and AI businesses are in the ascendant. Using a full-time employee equivalent, rather than a simple nominal headcount, alongside a standardised turnover and balance sheet total amount, would be a more proportional and accurate way of categorising most businesses, although I recognise that there is some tension with the point I just made about new tech and AI-type businesses. It is needlessly bureaucratic that so many definitions exist across so much legislation. This has been a long-running issue on all sides of the House, so I hope the Minister will agree to work with us to resolve it through the later stages.

I recognise the concerns surrounding the Small Business Commissioner. A perfectly free and competitive market would, of course, negate the need for a third party to arbitrate disputes, but in the absence of such a market, we support expanding the remit of the commissioner’s office to deal with these instances. Moving responsibilities away from the courts is the right choice, but, as has been stated, this must come with sufficient resources. Similarly, in the absence of such a perfect market, I understand the concern that suppliers that raise consistent disputes or enter into proceedings with an influential customer may face being blacklisted. So, for the Small Business Commissioner to work as intended, it must have the trust of the businesses it works for, and this means ensuring against negative repercussions from raising a dispute. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, my noble friend Lord Leigh and others for raising these concerns, and I hope the Minister will be able to address them. I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on enforcement and resources, as noted by, among others, my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Risby. For example, does the Minister have any idea how many staff work for the Office of the Small Business Commissioner, what resources they currently have and whether they will be increased in anticipation of this new legislation?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, noted, a more fundamental concern with this part of the Bill is the expansive Henry VIII powers it gives to the Secretary of State. New Section 2G, inserted by Clause 18, permits a wide array of unilateral actions, including the ability of the Secretary of State to restrict the disclosure of information and exclude specific disputes. I understand that the former could be used to protect smaller businesses, but it could also be used to protect the poor practices of larger firms, so I would welcome some clarity on this. Similarly, I wonder whether the Minister could specify in which circumstances the Secretary of State would consider excluding disputes. This has the potential to be very wide-ranging, so some specificity would be appreciated. Indeed, if the Minister is able to give that clarity today, can he say why the specific measures are not in the Bill?

My noble friend Lord Leigh’s points about the UN goals and large companies’ practice with regard to forcing their suppliers to address these complex rules were of merit and worthy of further discussion. I look forward to the Minister’s views on them.

Overall, we have some concerns, but this Bill marks an important step in the right direction for this Government’s industrial strategy. It is orientated towards helping small businesses survive and thrive, and I look forward to working with noble Lords on both sides of the House in the coming weeks.

Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate; I thank in particular the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Fox, for their Amendments 1, 9 and 10. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for all his work in the area of AI and digital technology, which we welcome. I recognise that these amendments were tabled in a constructive spirit, seeking to ensure that suppliers are paid promptly, with which we do not disagree; to ensure that payment processes are clear; and to ensure that purchasers cannot use contractual mechanisms to delay payment unjustly. Those are their aims, which the Government share.

Amendment 10 would create a new legal requirement for intermediaries, including online marketplaces, to send payments to a supplier within certain time limits. I understand the concern underlying the amendment. Where a small business sells through a platform or marketplace, it is important that the money due to that business is not held unnecessarily. However, that is neither the purpose nor the structure of the Bill. The Bill focuses on late payments under commercial contracts for the supply of goods and services. It strengthens the consequences that arise where qualifying commercial debt has been created and where payment is overdue. It sets clear limits on payment terms between suppliers and purchasers, and strengthens the framework for interest enforcement and accountability. Those protections already apply where there is a relevant commercial contract between a supplier and a purchaser, including where the supplier is ultimately paid via an intermediary.

However, where a platform or marketplace is merely holding, processing or transmitting funds between others, the Bill is not intended to regulate the wider intermediary relationship. Accepting this amendment would, therefore, move the Bill into a different area of regulation. It would establish a new statutory regime for online marketplaces and payment intermediaries, rather than maintaining the Bill’s clear focus on commercial payment practices between suppliers and purchasers. As such, although I respect the intention behind Amendment 10, I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate legislative vehicle for it.

Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to ensure that purchasers provide suppliers with greater clarity on how notices under the new Section 2B are to be served. I understand the practical purpose of the amendment. Suppliers need to know when they have properly notified a purchaser of the amount that is due. Purchasers also need clarity so that payment processes are efficient and unnecessary disputes are avoided. However, I hope to reassure noble Lords that the Bill is already sufficiently clear on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

If we really want to support the small businesses that are the backbone of the economy, we must stop asking them to act as the interest-free bank for big business. If large contractors employed their own staff, they would not be able to delay paying those salaries for months on end, so why should they be allowed, effectively, to do that to their suppliers? I do not claim my amendment is perfect. In reality, I am being generous to large undertakings. The ultimate standard should be the monthly invoicing cycle we see in Section 109 of the construction Act 1996. My proposal is a modest, pragmatic bridge towards that standard—noble Lords might note my 45 days is half way between the 60 days and the standard of the construction Act. It would close a loophole that would otherwise render the 60-day cap toothless in many circumstances.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, for their contribution on these amendments in my name. It is best that we get any legislation right in the first place, and I appreciate the support given to the Government on these amendments. There is a lot of tidying up and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, it is best that we address it now, which we are doing.

The noble Lord made a point about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Procurement falls within the Cabinet Office, so the responsibility lies with the Cabinet Office. I will need to get back to him on his earlier question about the public authority.

The amendments reinforce the principle that the public sector should lead by example in prompt payments, provide much needed clarity on construction contracts within the scope of the Procurement Act and make a number of minor but important improvements to the Small Business Commissioner provisions. Taken together, they enhance the effectiveness of the Bill, improve consistency across related legislative frameworks and provide greater certainty for businesses and public authorities alike.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

18: Clause 3, page 7, leave out lines 3 to 16
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the scope and impact of exempting upwards payments from the restriction on payment terms, given the fact that many of the suppliers will still be small or medium businesses.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce group 4, which primarily covers the important issue of the definitions of different sized businesses. Before I open that debate, I will touch on the other amendments in this group.

Amendment 18, which was signed by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Holmes of Richmond, probes the expected impact of exempting upward payments from the new payment terms. As a preliminary question, what economic impact do the Government specifically consider new Section 2E(2) will have? The Government’s argument is that the Bill will prevent the late payments that cost the United Kingdom £11 billion and cost small businesses almost eight days a year in chasing overdue invoices, yet they are exempting upward payments, including those from micro and sole undertakings, to small businesses. I understand that smaller businesses often appear more vulnerable and will often have tighter margins and a smaller cash flow, but that does not mean that the supplier, especially if it is also a small business, can necessarily take the hit of an indefinite or delayed payment term.

More broadly, the purchaser almost always has the power in a contractual agreement. They are the ones who hold the capital. Exempting upward payments merely because the purchaser is smaller will exempt contracts that really should fall under the scope of the Bill.

That brings me to the most long-standing issue this group addresses, which is the definition of businesses. There are currently at least six different definitions in law of business sizes. There are the Companies Act 2006, the Enterprise Act 2016, and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Standard settlers use the definition “less complex entities”, while this Bill uses the Procurement Act 2023, alongside giving the Secretary of State powers to make definitions.

We are not arguing that discretion is not needed in separate areas of policy, but it is widely thought that we have reached the point of confusion. At the very least, any new definition created under this Bill should not differ from any pre-established definition; that is the argument that Amendment 22 is attempting to make.

In a more ideal scenario, Amendments 20, 21, 23 and 101 attempt to offer a new standardised definition of business sizes that we believe more accurately represents the nature of today’s economy. Currently, the most used definitions in the Companies Act use a numerical number of employees as a factor in defining the size of a business. The amendments in my name, alongside those of my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Holmes of Richmond, aim to replace this nominal headcount with a full-time equivalent number of employees.

I offer just one important example of the importance of this change. In doing so, I thank UKHospitality for its campaign on this issue. Members of the hospitality industry often hire more than the threshold 50 or 250 employees at their venues or events, but do so on shorter, low-hours contracts. While they may therefore have an employee count well over the threshold, it often does not reflect the amount of work that is being done by these employees. We believe that the Government should be able to offer a more nuanced system that more accurately reflects the amount of labour that a business employs.

Finally, exacerbating this amalgam of definitions is the lack of public information about which business falls where. Restricting the definitions of businesses is important, but I pre-empt that the Minister will argue that this Bill is not the vehicle for that discussion. In a sense, he is quite right. Under new subsection (7) in Clause 3, the Secretary of State could define small businesses as those with £100 million turnover. It would not matter if businesses did not know which partners fell under this definition. This is hyperbole, but it illustrates the point that, without some form of database through which businesses can see who falls under which payment term in this Bill, definitions have little meaning. At the very least, businesses will be forced to complete the administrative work themselves.

In speaking to industry representatives in preparation for this Bill, there has been general consensus that Companies House is not fulfilling this role. The Bill aims to create more symmetry between different-sized businesses, yet that cannot be achieved if there is obscure or asymmetrical information. Can the Minister confirm today that he will look into the efficacy of Companies House and, if need be, provide additional support for businesses so they do not have the burden of defining businesses themselves placed upon them? I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment is withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for the context around some of the amendments that he has provided. I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, especially my noble friend Lord Holmes. I will be brief in response.

I totally accept that the Government do not want to use this Bill, which they rightly want to get through the House quickly, for a protracted debate about business definitions, which obviously would spill across several different pieces of legislation. However, I hope that the Government at least accept or acknowledge that this is becoming a growing concern. It is a confusing picture, as I think all noble Lords would acknowledge. I urge the Government and the Minister to at least consider Amendment 22, which would ensure that this problem was not made worse by this otherwise very sensible legislation.

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. We are trying not to propose solutions but to probe the Government’s intentions, and the Minister has gone some way to setting those out. We are also trying to highlight the fact that the nature of employment and small businesses is in itself changing, and therefore some of the more rigid and perhaps elderly definitions are no longer necessarily fit for purpose.

I appreciate the Minister’s responses regarding the exemption on upward payments and a business database. The context there was useful. On that, I would greatly appreciate it, if he has any information regarding the projected economic impact of this policy, if he was willing to write to me about it.

I hope the Minister will take our suggestion away before Report. As I outlined in my opening speech, this is a good opportunity to use data that is already held by the Government to help businesses be more efficient and competitive. I hope that after the Recess we can reconvene and take this issue further and continue our discussions.

It was remiss of me not to thank the Minister for his offer of the Companies House meeting, which he made the other day in private. I meant to do that but totally forgot. I thank him, and yes please. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for tabling Amendment 19, and acknowledge his advocacy in relation to e-invoicing and electronic trade documents. However, the intention to exempt imports and exports from maximum payment terms through secondary legislation is crucial to supporting UK businesses. Whether helping British manufacturers import materials and parts or allowing British exporters to compete in overseas markets where longer payment terms are common, we do not want to undermine the ability of UK businesses to trade competitively by limiting this potential exemption through Amendment 19.

The delegated power in new Section 2E(4) allows Ministers to make exemptions where payment practices vary across sectors and to respond to changing market conditions. It will be used sparingly in a targeted and evidence-based way and ensures that the regime can adapt, while still improving payment practices and protecting smaller suppliers. Removing or unduly constraining the flexibility would risk unintended consequences for businesses, particularly in sectors with more complex supply chains or commercial arrangements where longer payment terms can be mutually beneficial. Retaining this power ensures that the regime can be adapted where necessary while still delivering the Bill’s core objective of improving payment practices and protecting smaller suppliers.

The Government want to tackle and end scenarios where businesses unfairly use their larger size and power to impose unfair payment terms on smaller businesses. In the limited circumstances covered by the exemption, we do not consider that such imbalance leads to unfair outcomes, and an exemption from maximum payment terms could benefit the purchaser and the supplier.

I remember the days when I worked in my dad’s import and export business, the days when you used trust receipts and bills of lading—I am sure noble Lords will remember those—and let us not forget telex machines either. We have come a long way. I remember also the days when you had to write up or type up your invoices and send them to your suppliers by post. These days we have platforms that do a lot of invoicing electronically. One has also to appreciate that businesses come in all shapes and sizes and while bigger companies have more sophisticated systems in place, smaller businesses may not. We need to be respectful of some businesses that may not have sophisticated systems.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are moving towards e-invoicing and, I hope, over time more and more business will be conducted electronically and we will not really need the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. For this reason, I ask him to withdraw Amendment 19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I look forward to the debate on this group. Amendment 24 is incredibly straightforward. It requires that the purchaser calculates the interest and makes the payment in all circumstances because they have the means and the resources and are in the position to do such. In doing that, it does not just lead to an efficient process; crucially, it means that the relationship between the parties is maintained and not adversely affected as a consequence of these provisions. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for this amendment. I am sorry that noble Lords have caught me eating a toffee, which was a terrible error.

The ability to charge statutory interest on late payments was established by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. That Act, however, introduced that right only as a right to charge, which many businesses may choose not to exercise out of fear of damaging commercial relationships or losing out on contracts. With this Bill, statutory interest becomes an implied mandatory term of a commercial contract. Therefore, the interest will accrue automatically on overdue payments and the burden will not fall on the suppliers to claim that interest.

The amendment from my noble friend seeks to ensure that late payment interest is paid to a supplier within five working days. It further provides that where statutory interest is not paid within that timeframe, the unpaid interest will itself form a part of the qualifying debt and therefore be liable to a further charge of statutory interest. While we support this policy, we must ensure that businesses, particularly SMEs, are given adequate time to adapt to the new regulations.

The impact assessment recognises that small and medium-sized businesses will shoulder

“a higher proportion of net costs”

associated with this policy. It further states:

“The policy does not create specific mitigations for SMEs, rather information will be provided to all business, to support their understanding and complying with the new policy requirements, in line with previous guidance issued on statutory interest”.


Those words might not be particularly comforting for many small businesses that are already struggling. Might I suggest that the Government do a little more to explain precisely how they will support those businesses? What kinds of information will they provide?

I have tabled an amendment to the commencement clause of the Bill, to be debated later, which would prevent that clause being brought into force for one year. That is the kind of measure that will give businesses the time to adapt, understand the new guidance and prepare for the new regime. I hope that when we come to debate that amendment, the Minister will give it serious consideration.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for this amendment. I understand the concern that statutory interest is not always claimed or paid in practice, and I agree that it is important to find ways to make the systems work better for suppliers. However, the Bill already strikes the right balance. It strengthens the existing framework by making the right to statutory interest universal, ensuring it cannot be contracted out of, and underpinning it with significantly stronger enforcement and transparency. This signifies a significant advancement, transitioning from a system where the right exists, but remains underutilised, to one where all suppliers are explicitly entitled to it and are supported in its enforcement.

This amendment would go further by introducing rigid and prescriptive requirements that risk undermining the balanced approach. A fixed five-day deadline for the payment of interest does not accurately reflect the practical realities of commercial and accounting practices and processes; it may pose a risk of technical breach to businesses that are otherwise compliant. The proposed definition of payment as an

“unequivocal and unencumbered use of cleared funds”

could lead to legal and operational uncertainties, diverting attention from timely payment to technical disagreements over banking procedures.

Additionally, classifying unpaid interest as new qualifying debt, which then accumulates more interest, risks creating disproportionately large and growing liabilities. The obligation for directors to report instances of non-payment to the Small Business Commissioner would also introduce supplementary administrative burdens, without a distinct enforcement advantage beyond the provisions already established in the Bill.

Taken together, these provisions risk creating complexity and uncertainty, rather than improving payment outcomes in practice. The Bill aims to enhance behaviour by establishing clear rights, enforceability and robust oversight, rather than specifying detailed operational rules in primary legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

It would make very good sense if, at the same time as Ministers implemented the ban on retention payments through this legislation, they also brought forward regulations rapidly to commence the provisions of Sections 136 to 140 of the Building Safety Act— I hope they can do all this in the course of this year, rather than, as I think is intended, well into next year—and implemented the tender to procure the new homes ombudsman scheme and the code of practice. If we are proceeding with a full ban on retention payments, that would be an extremely good complement to that, because it would provide purchasers with a scheme designed to ensure that the homes being built for them are of the quality they expect. I beg to move Amendment 44.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I totally understand where the noble Lord is coming from, of course, and I think we have indicated already that we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel. What he is in effect saying is that the suppliers have to behave better, reduce defects and do all sorts of other good stuff, all of which is admirable and worthy, but what are the incentives to ensure that they do? I am sure the noble Lord is familiar with the famous saying of Charlie Munger, who was Warren Buffett’s partner: “If you show me the incentives, I’ll tell you the outcomes”. At the moment there are no incentives, so the outcomes will not be good.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I think the mere incentive of getting the money earlier will ensure that the service and the quality of work will be done to specification. Otherwise, the claim for compensation will come in, so the whole incentive is to get the work done properly in the first place.

Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) The purchaser must advise the supplier how the supplier should submit notice as set out in subsection (1).(1B) Where the purchaser fails to advise the supplier on how to submit notice, the supplier may rely on the notice commencing by submitting a written document (for example, a delivery notice or invoice) to the person requesting the goods or services within the purchaser’s business.(1C) The purchaser must adopt internal systems that recognise that the serving of notice commences at the point the supplier complies with subsections (1A) and (1B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the purchaser to give instructions as to how notice should be given. Where the purchaser gives no advice on notice, the supplier may rely on notice having been given by providing a delivery notice or invoice to the person within the purchaser’s business who is requesting the goods or services.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about why the Government are not defining in the Bill when a payment is considered made, the Bill is clear on the payment terms that commercial contracts can contain and the consequences for not making a payment within those terms. So, where a payment has not been received by a supplier under the terms of a contract, that payment will be a late payment and interest will accrue. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment 1 and that noble Lords will support the amendments in my name.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and, in particular, for the last piece that he mentioned, which is very welcome news, and I appreciate the clarification. As I outlined in my opening speech, a number of questions remain regarding the implementation and operation of maximum payment terms. I accept what the Minister said about consultation. I am generally dubious about the Government’s enthusiasm for consultations, but in this case, it was a good one.

We very much agree with the principle. We still need to see how these measures will actually work in practice. That is why I am very optimistic about Amendment 15. The Government will have an opportunity to revisit these measures, and I hope in doing so that they consult stakeholders and those affected by all the potential issues that this group has raised. I say to the Minister: keep up the good consultation work on this case. I look forward to scrutinising the regulations when they appear but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

11: Clause 3, page 8, leave out lines 17 to 24 and insert—
“(7) In subsections (2) and (3)—“a micro undertaking” means an undertaking which has no more than 10 full-time equivalent employees, and has—(a) a turnover of no more than £1 million, or(b) a balance sheet total of no more than £500,000;“a small undertaking” means an undertaking other than a micro undertaking which has no more than 50 full-time equivalent employees, and has—(a) a turnover of no more than £15 million, or(b) a balance sheet total of no more than £7.5 million;“a medium-sized undertaking” means an undertaking other than a small undertaking or micro undertaking which has no more than 250 full-time equivalent employees, and has—(a) a turnover of no more than £54 million, or(b) a balance sheet total of no more than £27 million;“a large undertaking” means any undertaking other than a medium-sized undertaking, small undertaking or micro undertaking.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Hunt of Wirral, seek to create a standardised definition of different sized businesses on the face of the CPILPA 1998.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments revisits the issue of the definitions of different-sized businesses. I note the new amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which highlights the same concerns as we raised in Committee.

Those concerns remain. There has been a proliferation of definitions for different-sized businesses to suit a multitude of aims of the Government of the day. Currently, a minimum of six statutory frameworks use materially different-sized criteria, as well as other definitions existing in sector-specific regulations and guidelines. I know that the Minister will agree when I reiterate that this is currently too complex a system. The Government should aim to place as few obstacles as possible in the path of business; that means cutting the bureaucratic paperwork and jargon that firms complete to meet their legal obligations. The proliferation of business size definitions is a case in point. They may not be entirely contradictory, but they are certainly not complementary, and I believe that everyone would benefit from a more streamlined approach.

I entirely accept the Minister’s point in Committee that such a wide reform cannot take place in a Bill with as narrow a scope as this one. However, he should at least commit to restricting the definitions within this Act to those that already exist, to the best of his ability. Such a step clearly has support from all sides of the House. Similarly, given that the Minister has indicated his support for some reform of definitions, can he commit to revisiting this issue with me at a future point? I hope that he can agree to this and I look forward to his response. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, again I am grateful to the Minister for his very comprehensive response. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for explaining his Amendment 35 and for digging out yet another example of an Act that governs the definitions of small business. Might I suggest to the Minister that, during this consultation, they include a question on how the nature of small business has evolved in the last 10 years? Obviously, there has been a spectacular explosion in e-commerce and other things, which will have a material impact on the types of definition we are talking about.

As I outlined in my opening speech, the current landscape of definition is unnecessarily convoluted—expensively so, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out. However, I recognise that this Bill is not necessarily the best vehicle for driving through that reform. I appreciate the Minister’s response on this issue. I will absolutely take him up on his offer of further talks on how we might improve a bit of a messy picture. I think I also heard him say that he is quite keen to find another legislative vehicle where we can address this in the future—if I am making that up, I am sure that he will correct the record.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

22: Clause 11, page 15, line 34, at end insert—
“(3) A party to a construction contract is not precluded from engaging with a third party in the transference of money to another party to the construction contract under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether escrow arrangements would still be permitted under the terms of the Bill.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

On Amendment 26, I agree that payments under the Bill should not be withheld where there has been no breach of contract by the supplier. The amendment is not necessary to achieve this. The same principle I outlined in response to Amendment 25 applies and includes ESG. The commissioner can determine what is owed under the contract through adjudication and has the power to investigate persistent poor payment practices. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 22 and not to press Amendments 23 to 26.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am again grateful to the Minister for his response and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his comments. On the ESG impositions and the general risk of coercion of smaller businesses by larger ones, I accept that these are already prohibited by law but I gently raise that the risk of coming forward with complaints of this kind often outweighs the benefits of redress. Essentially, small businesses are being coerced into ESG practices. That is still a problem and one that I hope a Government will address in the future.

I thank the Minister for his outline of the Government’s approach to the retentions issues. I am genuinely optimistic from listening to him, because he has talked about a variety of different products that are available. We have had some briefings on those: performance bonds, retention bonds and, as he mentioned, the warranty bond. They tend to be more common practice in Europe; I think warranty bonds are only offered by a single firm in the United Kingdom at the moment. I hope that the market will provide solutions to this problem, because we think that some form of insurance would be effective and necessary in these circumstances. It cannot really be accepted as a retention payment alternative if it is currently so scarce, so we need to make sure that it is well understood publicly and perhaps mount a campaign with industry to make sure this is very well understood.

I accept the noble Lord’s arguments about the difficulty of creating an exemption for resident-run properties. I will have a think about that further when I have a chance to read Hansard, but he made some good points.

I hope that the Government will be able to update the House in due course on their progress in promoting these various different types of instruments. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment regarding turnover and financial penalties. These amendments raise an important question about how turnover should be calculated for financial penalties under the payment reporting regime following an investigation by the SBC. I thank the noble Lord for the constructive discussions that we have had on this issue.

The Government agree that this issue merits proper debate. We want penalties to be meaningful and capable of driving compliance while ensuring that the approach is proportionate, relevant and workable for businesses in scope. The Government support the aim of the amendment, at this stage, to open up the debate on the appropriate basis for calculating turnover. However, I want to be clear that the Government have not reached a final view on the most appropriate approach. The Government will want to engage with businesses, business representatives and other interested parties before determining how turnover should be calculated for these purposes, including—given that the Bill addresses UK payment practices—whether it should be limited to UK turnover or extended more widely.

Further detail on how turnover is calculated will be provided in secondary legislation. That secondary legislation will be informed by a process of consultation to determine how turnover should be calculated. Additionally, that secondary legislation, which will be debated in Parliament, will allow the final position to be properly tested. This approach will ensure that the regime retains the flexibility required to operate effectively and proportionately.

On that basis, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for raising this important issue and for engaging positively with the Government. The Government support Amendments 30 to 32 and 43 to 45, to which I have added my name. Before I sit down, I once again thank all noble Lords, especially those from the Opposition Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Fox—for their thoughtful and constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. It just shows that we can get things done if we work collaboratively.