House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Dec 1992

Madam Speaker : I have listened most carefully to what the hon. Member said and of course I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not think that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Column 285

Points of Order

4.34 pm

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson (Aberdeen, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker, as a new and inexperienced Member I seek your guidance and a ruling. Is it not a contempt of this House for the leader of one of Scotland's principal parties, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), to absent himself from one of Scotland's biggest statements of the year--the Secretary of State's annual expenditure statement?

Madam Speaker : Frankly, I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. [Interruption.] Order. I think he was being facetious and wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the decision you have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in respect of Cammell Laird, would it be possible to use your good offices to ask the President of the Board of Trade, who once posed as a friend of Merseyside, to come to the House at 7 o'clock this evening to make a statement and answer questions which are vital for our constituents on Merseyside and elsewhere?

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Speaker has no authority to request or influence in requesting a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box. The situation is the other way round : a Minister informs the Speaker when a statement is to be made.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I risk mildly irritating you for a second time today. Further to the Standing Order No. 20 application made by my hon. Friend--and I use that term advisedly--the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in relation to Cammell Laird, I accept your decision and I realise that you do not have to give a reason for that decision. However, might I ask as strongly as I can that, perhaps when you are taking a cup of tea, you might reconsider that decision in the light of the plea made eloquently, sensibly and with plenty of evidence by my hon. Friend ?

Madam Speaker : I tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I am not easily irritated. If I have a chance to have a cup of tea today, I will, as ever, take the Standing Order No. 20 application very seriously. I realise the seriousness of the situation.

Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton) : Madam Speaker, my point of order is genuine and helpful to the Chair. You will recall the somewhat protracted exchanges that took place last week in respect of the proper use of Government and private money in the Chancellor's case to evict his tenant. Those protracted exchanges would have been brought to a much speedier conclusion which would have been helpful to our business if it had become clear early on that the Comptroller and Auditor General intended to examine the matter.

Has a Minister indicated to you that the Comptroller and Auditor General will also consider the use of important Government buildings for private purposes? In that regard, I refer to the use this morning of No. 11 Downing street for fund raising activities for the

Column 286

Conservative party. Once again, that seemed to cross the line between public and private use. I have no doubt that exchanges on the matter in the House would be curtailed if we could be assured that the Comptroller and Auditor General will look into that matter to ensure that public moneys have been properly expended.

Madam Speaker : The use of official Government accommodation is a matter for hon. Members, who should pursue the matter with Ministers. It does not raise points of order for the Chair.

Ms. Angela Eagle (Wallasey) : Further to the application under Standing Order No. 20 by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), while I appreciate and respect your decision, Madam Speaker, would it be in order for me to ask you to look favourably on an application for an Adjournment debate on that extremely important issue given that the Speaker can choose one subject for an Adjournment debate a week?

Madam Speaker : I do not want to put myself in the position of encouraging hon. Members to make such applications to me across the Floor of the House because, if I did, I would have a rash of them. The hon. Lady had better leave it with me.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : I am not sure, Madam Speaker, whether my point of order is genuine. No doubt you will put me right if it is not. I am a positive European which is why I have problems with the Maastricht treaty. Imagine my excitement when I discovered that there was a parliamentary group known as the positive Europeans. Knowing your interest in parliamentary groups, Madam Speaker, I went to the Library to find out about it. I was very excited because I was told that there were 75 members. When I went to the Library, I discovered that there were only five officers and one member. I am deeply concerned about that. Is it right and proper that people should say that there is a parliamentary group with 75 members when there are only five officers and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? Is there something that you can do to clarify the matter because it seems that the House is being misled?

Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe) rose--

Madam Speaker : Is it further to that point of order?

Mr. Whitney : Yes, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is deficient in knowledge, but I will certainly ensure that a copy of the list of 79 members of the Positive European group is placed in the Library. It was already available to the Press Association. I am sorry that my hon. Friend and his collegues are so ill-informed on that matter.

Madam Speaker : That is the most helpful point of order that I have had for some time.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Firearms (Northern Ireland)

That the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Column 287

Commercial Debt Settlement

4.39 pm

Mr. Michael Bates (Langbaurgh) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that commercial debts shall carry interest after a specified period ; to require publication in annual reports of details relating to the settlement of debts ; and for connected purposes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to seek leave to bring before the House statutory measures to protect small businesses from the late payment of bills. In presenting the Bill I would like the House to be aware of the key facts that have convinced me of the need for legislation of this nature.

It is estimated that small businesses, that is, those employing fewer than 20 people, which constitute some 97 per cent. of all businesses, are presently owed some £145 billion in unpaid bills. On average, it takes 81 days from the date of invoice for the average business debt in the United Kingdom to be settled. Since we are in the middle of considering matters European, I should point out that only we and Ireland do not have legislation to protect small businesses from the late payment of bills. The United Kingdom's record of an average 51-day settlement following the normal 30-day payment period compares with 28 days in France and 18 days in Germany, Norway and Sweden. This places British business at a clear disadvantage to their main international competitors. According to a CBI/Cork Gully report in January 1991, nearly one in five small firms were on the verge of going out of business because of late payment of debts.

In a recent debate on the Adjournment of the House, I addressed the problem of banks failing to pass on interest rate reductions to their small business customers. I acknowledge, however, that business overdrafts are only a symptom. The Bill that I seek leave to present to the House today tries to address the cause which, more often than not, is the late payment of accounts for goods and services. The Midland bank conducted a survey of its small business accounts and found that, on average, businesses were owed three times as much by their customers as they themselves owed to the bank.

The House will be aware that I am not the first to attempt to present a solution to this growing problem. My hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) have all brought these important issues before the House, and I am sufficient of a realist to acknowledge that I may not be the last. As far back as 1978 the Law Commission identified the problem. In 1982 my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley moved an amendment to the Administration of Justice Act 1977, designed to ensure that the Law Commissioners' proposals of 1978 were fully implemented.

It is also true that these proposals have always been opposed by the CBI. I do not begrudge this because the CBI feels that it is protecting its interests--the interests of large and medium-sized businesses. I would, however, put it to the CBI that its true best interests lie in having a thriving small business sector which will compete for custom on the grounds of quality and service rather than on the ability to keep their heads above water the longest. Many people have made suggestions which fall short of what I propose this afternoon. For example, why not allow VAT on purchases to be claimed when businesses have settled the accounts or invoices in question? This suggestion

Column 288

contains a lot of common sense. However, with a VAT threshold of £35,000 it would not help the many small businesses which are not registered for VAT.

Some suggest voluntary codes of practice, and I acknowledge the role of documents such as the Government's leaflet "Prompt Payment Please" and the CBI's "Prompt Payers--A Code of Practice". From the fact that in 1986 privately owned business was owed £57 billion whereas in 1990 the figure had risen to £145 billion, an increase in real terms of almost 100 per cent., it is clear that this is not working. According to a survey by Dun and Bradstreet, only 5 per cent. of businesses are aware of these codes of practice. Some say that it is up to the business itself to negotiate terms and conditions and to take businesses to court for late payment, but when a small business is desperate for work, as most are, and is offered settlement terms of 90 days only, what chance has it of levering a 30-day settlement period? It would only result in the contract going elsewhere. Moreover, what chance would the same small business stand of gaining repeat orders if it took the company to court? What chance has a small business man of taking on a multinational with its legions of commercial lawyers? None. That is why this Bill is so desperately needed by small businesses. My Bill has four main provisions. It would establish a 30 -day settlement period for contractual debts which would bring us into line with our main international competitors and ensure fair competition among suppliers on the basis of quality, service and price alone.

It would provide the right for statutory interest to be levied from the expiry of the 30-day settlement period. This would remove the financial incentive which currently exists for businesses to delay payment of bills.

It would establish a statutory rate of interest to be levied in accordance with judgment rates as laid down and amended from time to time by the Lord Chancellor. This would be fair, because the interest received on late settlement would be equivalent to that which would have been received had the matter been taken before the courts, and yet it would seek to avoid time-consuming and expensive litigation. It would seek, through an amendment to the Companies Act 1989, to require all public limited companies to publish their settlement periods of accounts and invoices in their annual reports. This would open up the issue of prompt settlement to the scrutiny of shareholders and the public, and it would enable appropriate comparisons to be drawn.

I am grateful for the opportunity to present this Bill to the House. I believe that it is widely supported, inside and outside the House, as it is vitally needed by the businesses that it seeks to serve and whose interests it seeks to protect. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. John Watts, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Michael Alison, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. Raymond Robertson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. David Faber and Mr. Gary Streeter.

Commercial Debt Settlement

Mr. Michael Bates accordingly presented a Bill to provide that commercial debts shall carry interest after a specified period ; to require publication in annual reports of details relating to the settlement of debts ; and for conected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill. 93.]

Column 289

Orders of the Day

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1 December].

[Mr. Michael Morris-- in the Chair ]

4.48 pm

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You have been exceptionally helpful in trying to enable us to conduct this debate in a reasonable and sensible fashion. Can you help in any way to overcome a problem which may become serious for all of us? As I understand it, you are quite circumscribed in the degree to which you can regulate the length of hon. Members' speeches. I understand that you can stop them for speaking away from the point--for example, talking about the north pole when they are supposed to be talking about Strasbourg. You can check hon. Members for being tedious and repetitious. However, for anybody who knows anything about the European Community, it is perfectly possible to speak about the European Community for days without being repetitious--absolutely for days without being repetitious. The only limitation is the state of the larynx and whether there is some water available.

On the actual management of the debate, I compliment you, Mr. Morris, on dividing it into subjects so that we can have a rational discussion, or a succession of rational debates. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will not object if I relate that, as we came into the House by accident--pas hasard, if I may use that expression--together this morning, he remarked that, if one was called upon to speak about industrial, consumer, commercial, agricultural, and market issues, one could go on for a very long time and that, if one was not able to do that, one would be quite a duffer. We have a real problem. What do we do?

There are three ways of dealing with the problem. First, Mr. Morris, you could have a timetable motion. You might say that that has nothing directly to do with you and that it is a matter for the Government at some stage to decide--they may at some stage so decide, although we have a problem with majorities. There are Members of Parliament such as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who would consider such a motion out of order, that it would not be appropriate because we are dealing with a constitutional issue and would raise that matter with you. That is a problem.

The second way of dealing with the problem is for a closure motion to be moved by the Government or by hon. Members. There is talk that there might be a closure motion some time this evening--talk in the couloir. Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) continues remorselessly, ineluctably, unrepetitiously--

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye) : And boringly.

Sir Russell Johnston : "Boringly" is a word I did not use. Conservative Members might use it.

Column 290

The proposal is brought to you, Mr. Morris, because you decide whether closures are appropriate. That would be very difficult for you, because only four hon. Members would have spoken, and no Labour Back-Bench Member would have spoken. That would be exceedingly difficult for you, despite the length of time for which the hon. Member for Stafford had spoken unrepetitiously, as I have said. That is a difficult matter.

Thirdly, you could have a time limitation by agreement, Mr. Morris. That is done, as we all know, by the 10-minute limit on speeches, but it has not, as far as I know, ever been used in Committee. It might even be precluded in Committee ; I do not know about that. It might be considered for a Committee ; I do not know about that. For example, hon. Members say, "Yesterday, I spoke, according to the record"--

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. The hon. Gentleman brings 28 years' experience to the House. Hon. Members, not least those who have had fewer than 10 years in the House, will have listened to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that tedious repetition is out of order, as indeed is irrelevance. Water is not supplied to keep hon. Members going, and I am afraid that there is no 10-minute limit.

However, we are making progress. Almost every hon. Member who has tabled an amendment in the first group has spoken. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has covered all his matters. I imagine that he will just about be winding up and that we can make progress and look forward to contributions from Back-Bench Members.

Sir Russell Johnston : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have raised, as far as I can remember, only three points of order in all my time in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] It is all very well hon. Members saying, "Hopefully." It is perfectly proper for you to hope that the hon. Member for Stafford will resume his seat in a short time. Unfortunately, it is true that, whatever his unique qualities, the hon. Gentleman is not the only hon. Member with loquacity, and others could imitate his capacity for speaking for two hours.

Therefore, will you speak to the Procedure Committee to see whether there is any way in which one could deal with that? You can check hon. Members for repetition. There is a stage at which one could speak at length without repetition, but one would be going beyond a cogent argument. Perhaps you might look into that.

Another point that you might consider, Mr. Morris, is whether you could talk to the parties or to the groups about a rational approach. Last night, I had a nightmare

The Chairman : Order. I thought that, with the House rising at 10.30 pm, the hon. Gentleman would have had an early night. Sadly, there is no Procedure Committee at the moment, so I cannot report anything to it. The hon. Member for Stafford tabled no fewer than six amendments. He took rather longer than normal, but he has obviously now covered them. I travel in hope--one has to travel in hope in this job.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) rose --

The Chairman : Is it a totally new point of order?

Column 291

Mr. Budgen : It is a new point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman : It had better be a new point of order.

Mr. Budgen : I wonder whether you could give the Government an early opportunity to make a statement on the decision of the Bundestag, which, if I may say so, is of great importance--

The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that I have absolutely no power to encourage the Government to make a statement about anything. Twice yesterday the hon. Gentleman raised bogus points of order. This is now the third bogus one. I am here to serve the House, but I want genuine points of order.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is my understanding, and perhaps it is yours also, that the treaty has to be ratified by all countries according to their constitutions. Does that mean according to the constitutions pertaining at the day that the agreement was reached, or does it take into account the various amendments and variations now affecting certain other constitutions, which are beginning to look suspiciously like opt-outs? I wonder--

The Chairman : Order. That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You are, of course, a servant of the House, as we all are, and not of the Government. I was a member of the Procedure Committee. Will you confirm that there is no question of a time limit being fixed by the Chair? Is it not usual, certainly in respect of controversial matters and not only in the House of Commons but in Committee--and nothing could possibly be more controversial than the Bill--that hon. Members debate and explore the Bill?

It is foolish and wrong to say that that is filibustering. No doubt you will confirm that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was never out of order yesterday. He was exploring the details in the amendments. He was explaining his objections and putting forward proposals. He was very much in line with the amendments.

Would it not be wrong if the feeling grew that, because the Government wish the Bill to progress as quickly as possible, hon. Members should be under any pressure whatsoever to say that we will not consider the detail of a Bill which we believe to be of the utmost constitutional significance?

The Chairman : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are more than 650 Members of Parliament. I am not sure whether I could call every hon. Member on each amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As it is freely admitted that the Government have presented to us a Bill on which we find difficulty in dealing with matters relative to the ratification of the treaty, surely, in your defence of every hon. Member as Chairman, you should permit hon. Members who are within order to speak, especially as the Government have tried to curtail the debate as best they can by the way in which they have drafted the Bill.

The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see how we progress. For the moment, we will start again on amendment No. 93.

Column 292

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman : Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Marlow : It is a new point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful to you, as usual. You have just said that it would be impossible for every one of 650 Members to participate in every debate on every issue. That is obviously so. But you realise, Mr. Morris, as do other hon. Members, that this legislation may change fundamentally and put at risk the very powers of the House. Many hon. Members feel deeply about it.

Obviously not every hon. Member will want to speak on every issue or every amendment, but you will be aware of the depth of feeling among hon. Members. You will also be aware that there is no desperate, tearing hurry to get the Bill on the statute book. Not even the Government want it until May 1994.

The Chairman : I think that the hon. Gentleman made that speech yesterday. I agree that it is a different day, but perhaps in future the hon. Gentleman could make different speeches on different days.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman : Is it a new one?

Mr. Benn : It is about the way in which a referendum might get on to the agenda.

The Chairman : We had points of order about a referendum yesterday.

Mr. Benn : It is a serious point. I spent most of the night considering how this might be done. One way in which it could be done would be to have a preamble to the Bill, declaratory in character, which said that, in view of the importance of the Bill, everybody should have an opportunity to express an opinion.

There is no preamble to the Bill. Preambles are in order. The preamble which I have in mind would not affect the weight of the Bill but would simply declare that it was a matter on which the public would have a right to express an opinion. I wondered, Mr. Morris, whether you would be ready to consider amendments to the preamble so that the issue of public consent may somehow be introduced into our debates. That is the point that I wanted to make.

The Chairman : The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot read his mind. I should be grateful if he would put the amendment in writing. If something is in writing, I can consider it.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman : I hope it is a new one.

Mr. Taylor : It is, Mr. Morris. Clearly it would be impossible for you to read anyone's mind, including that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), on the point of a referendum. The decision must be for you when he presents the amendment in writing. Would you note that there have been many rulings in the House that a referendum attached to a Bill such as this would not be part of the legislative proceedings, and, indeed, could cause constitutional problems? The purpose of the House is to go through a Bill such as this in

Column 293

Committee. That is why we are a parliamentary democracy. Many of us feel that a referendum is not appropriate in those circumstances.

The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman made that point yesterday. There is little point in hon. Members making the same points of order, day in, day out.

5 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You kindly said yesterday, on a very important point, that it would be possible at any time for the Government to move a money resolution. As this is relevant to possible amendments and would help the Committee, can you say whether that would be in the nature of an amendment, or can you tell us how a money resolution would be placed in the Bill?

The Chairman : It would be for the Government to decide the right way to do it. There are various methods which they could use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to the Minister if he wishes to progress that. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Can you give me guidance on whether there can be included in this section of the debate, since the Bundestag requires a two thirds majority--

The Chairman : Order. That is hypothetical. I have not called the hon. Lady yet. I call Mr. Cash on amendment No. 93, to which he has already spoken.

Clause 1

Treaty on European Union

Amendment proposed [1 December], No. 93, in page 1, line 9, after Titles', insert I'.-- [Sir Russell Johnston.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman : I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments : No. 108, in page 1, line 9, after Titles', insert

I (except Article F on page 8 cm. 934)'.

No. 313, in page 1, line 9, after Titles', insert I (except Article E)'.

No. 344, in page 1, line 9, after Titles', insert I (except Article A)'.

No. 345, in page 1, line 9, after Titles', insert I (except Article B)'.

No. 346, in page 1, line 9, after Titles', insert I (except Article C)'.

No. 347, in page 1, line 9, after Titles', insert I (except Article D)'.

No. 348, in page 1, line 9, after Titles', insert I (except Article F)'.

Next Section

Home Page