Speaker's Statement

Debate between Stephen Metcalfe and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and our colleague, James Brokenshire, who, very sadly, as we have heard, lost his courageous battle against lung cancer only two weeks ago. To lose one colleague is a tragedy, but to lose two in two weeks is almost too much to bear.

There is so much that I wanted to share with this House about my experiences with James. Much will be and has been said about James the politician, but I want to talk about James, my friend—the James I met some 45 years ago at Staples Road County Primary School. We grew up in the same area of Epping Forest. We joined the local Conservative association. We fought local elections together, either as candidates, helping each other, or when helping others to get elected. We supported the fantastic Member of Parliament for Epping Forest, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that she—you, Madam Deputy Speaker—was elected in 1997 and retained her seat at every election since. You must feel this loss as keenly as many of us here, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is unfortunate that you are not able to express that. James and I worked together to support Robin Squire in his attempt to regain his Hornchurch seat in 2001. That seat eventually sent James to this place in 2005, and that inspired me to find a seat that I could win.

James was the embodiment of all that is good. He was decent, honest and faithful. He demonstrated integrity and good humour in everything and was respected by all. Now, we have to say goodbye. Goodbye to James, taken from us all, especially from Cathy, Sophie, Jemma and Ben, all too cruelly and all too untimely. I send my deepest regrets and sympathies to them. As we have heard, as a tribute to James, Cathy has set up a muchloved.com page, and when I last checked well over £50,000 had been raised in memory of James and in support of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. I am sure we all agree that that is a fitting tribute, and I encourage people to visit that site—as Bob Geldof once said, “Give us your money”—because it will make a difference. But I look for the Government to do more. As we have seen throughout the pandemic, our UK science base is capable of extraordinary achievements at breakneck speed, when required. Now, as we move past the pandemic, it would be a fitting use of our science superpower status to lead the world in finding better treatments and cures for this cruel disease.

I could share with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, so many occasions on which James and I shared good times together, whether over a glass of wine at our Wasters Wine Club or just out on the campaign trail, but I fear that time is my enemy, so I will simply say: James, I will miss you greatly. Please, rest in peace, and, by the grace of God, rise in glory. Goodbye, my friend.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in everything that he has just said. I am going to break the rules for one second to say that they were my boys—James and his friends in Epping Forest—when I was the new MP 25 years ago. They worked for the cause in which we all believed and I watched James grow from being a Young Conservative to being a Member of Parliament, to being a Minister, to being a Cabinet Minister, with great pride. Now, we will watch James and Cathy’s children follow in his footsteps. He was and always will be so proud of them, as we all are of James as our friend. He will be so greatly missed and never, ever forgotten.

Loan Charge

Debate between Stephen Metcalfe and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers that point, I should explain to the House that we have less than 50 minutes left for this debate, for obvious reasons. He finds himself in the difficult position of being the opening speaker, as it were, and therefore he has been required to take a lot of interventions because people have short points that they want to make, but of course this debate had the bulk of its time last week, and I know from what people have told me that what they actually want to hear is the Minister’s reply to the many questions that were asked last week, and will be asked this week. There will therefore be a very short time limit on speeches—probably two minutes. The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in taking interventions, and I am sure he wants to finish the points that he would like to make. I have no objection to his taking further interventions, as long as the House realises that that will be the bulk of the debate.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hear what you say loud and clear, but I did want to allow Members to intervene because I think it allows them to get their points on the record.

The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) raised is completely valid. We need to be throwing the net wider to recover some of this money.

I reiterate that my constituent acted only under advice from a chartered accountant, with tax counsel’s opinion, so although everyone has a duty to pay the tax they owe, this feels off. It feels like a retrospective tax grab. We know that it is causing great stress, anxiety and depression. We know that there have been three suicides associated with it. It cannot be right and surely we must have a duty to look at it again.

If I may, I shall quote my constituent, who says:

“Very simply, if the loan charge is not delayed, and comes in as it is, it will destroy my quality of life and that of my family. It may well prevent me from working and lead me into bankruptcy. It has already caused me to suffer extreme stress, and is causing huge anxiety for my family. If the Government ploughs on with this retrospective legislation, it will be responsible for devastating the lives of families across generations.”

I will leave it there.

Will the Minister seriously consider a delay in implementation and a removal of the retrospective nature of the charge, so that it certainly does not go back further than 2017, when the charges were first announced? I hope that he will build on the assurances that he has given Members who have written to him—I am very grateful for those reassurances—by finding other mitigating measures, so that we can demonstrate, as a House, that we can respond positively and that we are capable not only of listening to, but of hearing and acting upon, the words of the people who come to us, asking for our representation.

Prompt Payment Code

Debate between Stephen Metcalfe and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I could not agree more. Even when there are agreed terms between a supplier and a contractor, those can be changed at the drop of a hat. Businesses are afraid of causing too much trouble because they want to see that repeat business coming back time and again, so we must do something about that. There is an ethical element to it, as well as a business element. The statistics show that. They are shocking and the problem is worsening.

This should be a wake-up call for us all, the Government included, not because the Government are not playing their part, but because we must not forget that behind every statistic and every number are people—people struggling to make ends meet, people desperately trying to keep their businesses afloat, and people losing their livelihoods. I know that this Government want to help people such as Matthew, who is a member of the Federation of Small Businesses. He is finance director for a small company that builds specialist equipment for public works. He entered into a contract with an agreed 60-days term, he invested a large sum of money to prepare for the work, and two days into the contract he received a letter stating that those terms had been changed to 100 days and that he had no right of appeal. As a result, he had to lay off three of his workers, he had to dip in and extend his overdraft, and he is currently owed £200,000.

This case study is not an isolated example. It powerfully demonstrates the devastating impact that late payments can have on small and medium-sized enterprises. Late payment costs business dearly and is an unmoving barrier to growth. Indeed, aside from access to finance, and/or the collapse of its market, late payment and non-payment of invoices is likely to have the biggest impact on a business’s viability and ability to grow. As the numbers show, the problem is not simply going to disappear. It requires concerted action, which must be led by the Government.

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we need new legislation. I am sure we all agree that we have enough rules and regulations, some better than others. Rather, as the title of the debate suggests, I am advocating better use and more effective implementation of the prompt payment code as a means of both assisting our SMEs and stimulating growth in our country. The prompt payment code is about encouraging and promoting best practice between organisations and their suppliers. Any organisation can sign up to the code, and those that do so undertake to pay suppliers on time within the terms agreed at the outset of the contract, give clear guidance to suppliers on payment procedures and, to encourage good practice, request that lead suppliers promote the adoption of the code throughout the supply chain.

The principles of the prompt payment code should be applauded. My concern is that its implementation and application are often found wanting. The evidence tells us that it is not enough to encourage a culture of prompt payment. The uptake of the code among large organisations is poor and contractors further down the supply chain are under no obligation to pass on the favourable terms that they receive. In a world in which cash flow is king, it is not sufficient merely to encourage best practice. We need a system in which the reality matches the rhetoric.

The current arrangements also make whistleblowing extremely difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in small or narrow supply chains. The mystery shopper arrangement, whereby businesses can report incidents of late payment, is not appropriate for those in particularly narrow chains. If there are only three businesses in a supply chain, it becomes all too easy for the main contractor to identify the whistleblower. The risk of losing business as a result is one that many SMEs cannot afford to take. Many members of the Federation of Small Businesses have attested to that.

Even when SMEs do confront contractors, the result is not always positive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out. I was shocked to read about another FSB member who challenged a business that paid him 58 days late, which resulted in him incurring £3,500 in bank charges. He was told by the company that basically he should be grateful for the work. I think that we all agree that that is unacceptable.

I am not suggesting that the PCC is redundant. Indeed, central Government have demonstrated that, when adhered to, it can be very effective at the first-tier level. Having made a staunch commitment to the principle of the PCC, central Government now make between 98% and 99% of all payments to primary contractors on time. But we must not stop there. Promptly paying top-tier contractors is all well and good, but if they are not obliged to pass on those terms to suppliers, and those suppliers are not obliged to pass them on to their suppliers, the benefit of prompt payment can be entirely lost. We need a system in which the favourable terms offered by Whitehall cascade right down the supply chain to the smaller SMEs or individual contractors. We must facilitate the creation of a system that drills all the way down to the bottom of the supply chain.

Unfortunately, late payment is not confined to public sector contractors; the problem also arises in the plethora of public sector organisations outside Westminster. The House might be surprised to learn that not all local authorities and public bodies are signed up to the prompt payment code. Countless examples of late payment, or even non-payment, have been identified in the public sector, and I am sorry to say that the NHS is a particularly bad example. Since 2009, the incidence of late payment in the NHS has increased by at least 8%. I am sure we all agree that that is completely unacceptable.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the debate before the House; it will be very popular with small businesses in my constituency, which he knows extremely well. Does he agree that, although it is sometimes difficult to put pressure on commercial organisations to adhere to the prompt payment code, it is absolutely unacceptable for any organisation in receipt of taxpayers’ money, either in the first instance or further down the supply chain, not to adhere to it? The Government already have the power to take action, not by statute or new rules and regulations, but through their buying power as a commercial organisation, and they should do so now.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I could not agree more. One of the key things we can do, at virtually no cost to the Government, is ensure that all public sector bodies in receipt of public funds sign up to the code.

Late payments are stifling the ambitions of small and medium-sized companies. Those companies are increasingly becoming embroiled in a vicious cycle of late payment. They are paid late, then they pay their suppliers late, and they in turn pay their suppliers late. Billions of pounds are being withheld from our economy by some of the organisations that have the deepest pockets, as has been mentioned. Why are they withholding payments? I do not know. Whatever the reason—malice, poor practice or inefficiency—it must change.