Civil Servants: Working from Home

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to review the effect on public services of civil servants working from home.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, there are clear benefits from face-to-face, workplace-based collaborative working. That is why departments have issued new guidance that most civil servants should spend at least 60% of their working time in the office and our senior civil servants have been told that they need to set an example as leaders.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer but are we not a trading nation? If we are, should we not support our industry, commerce and individual entrepreneurs? How can they possibly do what we want them to do when they—let alone the poor ordinary person who is equally affected—cannot get the support they need from His Majesty’s departments of state, whether that amounts to telephone calls unanswered, emails not returned, or meetings rescheduled? Against that background, we now know from a report published by the National Audit Office that this is costing over £5 billion a year on procurement, and on theft and fraud, again, over £5 billion a year. Will my noble friend, as a senior Minister and with her teams, meet the Civil Service to ensure that we get good, firm leadership that is aspirational and involves civil servants at all stages, and recognise that working from home is not viable?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with a lot of what my noble friend says. He and I both have a background in retail and leadership is very important. That is one reason why the new Minister for the Cabinet Office, John Glen—well known to many of your Lordships—set out in a speech how the Civil Service should lead in providing public services. That included spending a minimum 60% of working time in the office, with leaders encouraging that because of the benefits it brings to the workforce.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to this group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, applying a super-affirmative resolution procedure to changes to the reach of Clause 8 on indirect discrimination on services— the goods, equivalent and various other clauses having fallen. Amendment 9 requires publication of the results of consultation and reasons for decisions reached, and Amendment 74 tries to overcome the Minister’s objection to the super-affirmative procedure on the grounds that it could cause needless delay, by providing for rapid approval in cases of urgency.

I agree with the need for consultation and explanation, but I am not sure that this needs to be in the Bill. There should indeed be an opt-out in cases of urgency, but only if this route were to find favour with our House. However, I do not believe that the case has been made that the super-affirmative procedure is needed, certainly not on the scale proposed and in the light of the amendments already made by the Government in respect of mutual recognition of goods.

I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said about the Minister’s readiness to listen to the experts in this House and to make changes to make this legislation work. I was involved in securing the procedures used very selectively in the withdrawal Act, when the then Minister, my noble friend Lord Callanan, was very helpful. I am a practical person, and I have not seen any real evidence here of the need for the use of the super-affirmative procedure. We need much more specific and concrete concerns to justify my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s amendment. If the proposers of the amendment are just fearful, that is not enough to merit the super-affirmative procedure.

Perhaps the Minister can provide examples of how the powers in the clauses will be used and, perhaps more important, why he believes that the super-affirmative procedure is over the top in this case. That would sit on the record, Pepper v Hart style, and minimise the risk from the use of the powers in the Bill.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, given my five years in the Chair in the other place, noble Lords will not be surprised that I had a closer look at the super-affirmative procedure, where it has been used and where it should be used.

First, we all acknowledge that this is a very important Bill, which is why there is an affirmative resolution procedure in various clauses. We start with that. Secondly, as noble Lords have said, the super-affirmative procedure involves an additional stage of scrutiny where Parliament considers a proposal for a statutory instrument before it is formally presented—what we call laid. This procedure is used for statutory instruments that are considered to need a particularly high level of scrutiny. That is self-evident, I think.

I then checked where they had been used. The statutory instruments used so far usually amend or repeal Acts of Parliament. Examples would include legislative reform orders, localism orders, public bodies orders, regulatory reform orders and remedial orders. Although I have had only a short time to do it, I have not found it within primary legislation—I stand to be corrected, but I have not found it myself. Indeed, listening to my noble friend proposing that this procedure should be used, it seemed to me that it was a sort of grapeshot approach, scattered throughout the Bill, suggesting that all the bits in these amendments are absolutely vital and must be taken specially. I just do not think that stacks up.

Furthermore, because this Bill is important, and because we are dealing with devolved powers who will be consulted and worked with, it will just add further delay. That is not in the interests of Parliament, business, commerce, or the people of the United Kingdom. So quite frankly, I certainly will not be supporting this at all—I think it is almost out of order.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, the idea behind this new clause has validity, and particularly will after the pandemic, whenever it is over. There is little doubt that some companies will be strong after the pandemic because they happen to be in a particular market, and others will be extremely weak and looking to be rescued somehow. The only problem I have is that the new clause refers to the

“duty to consider the internal market”

when in fact, that is the only market that will apply from 1 January onwards as far as the UK is concerned. So, it is not as though it is one of several markets; it is the only market in my judgment.

The noble Baroness is quite right that in some of the markets, there are already signs that things are happening. In the fintech market, things are undoubtedly moving quickly—for example, in sections such as payments and operations. You only have to read the Financial Times regularly, as I am sure a lot of noble Lords do, to see that things are moving all the time there. Equally, a fair number of our universities have what you might call cradle operations or primary operations, whereby they are looking to develop research that they believe might be marketable. Many are quoted companies; others are not. There is a lot of activity happening.

Although it is undoubtedly true that we want to see both paragraphs (a) and (b) happen, given the original role of the CMA, which emerged from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, I think it pretty inconceivable that it would not look at these aspects. My noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to clarify that more than I am able to.

If there is not sufficient cover within the current Bill and other parts of the law, I hope my noble friend will look upon the amendment seriously. If that degree of cover already exists, I can understand why, although the issue is worth looking at and talking about, it may not be appropriate to deal with it in a new clause.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 153 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. This is a new clause relating to mergers that might affect the internal market. She may have a reasonable point that this is a matter of public policy about which we should be concerned. It is odd the way mergers involving an overseas player without a UK business cannot be stopped under merger law—think Cadbury, think ARM, as well as GKN Melrose, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, explained was a particularly heinous example—because there is not the necessary lessening of competition. Although she did not say so, perhaps there is a parallel concern about takeovers important to one of the devolved nations or to a particular R&D base.

However, I do not think this is a big risk, as representations would be made to the CMA and taken into account in consultation and decision-making by the CMA, which is domestically focused and operates across the UK. My concern is that the new clause would be a major change to the way merger law works; I do not think it right to try to change one aspect in this Bill. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Naseby and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She is right about pace. I am sorry that we have lost the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; I think he sacrificed himself to help this important Bill make progress. I congratulate him on the earlier debate on Amendment 73 and his closing emphasis on the importance of sequestration in meeting any climate change targets.

I agree with the spirit of the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I agree with him that the transition to a new funding system should not result in a reduction in the overall financial assistance provided for agriculture and associated purposes. However, this may go a bit far, given the disastrous impact of Covid-19; everyone, including the agriculture community, may have to make a contribution to recovery.

However, farmers will need continued support from next year, as we leave the CAP on 31 December, albeit for different functions. Farms are mainly small businesses. I understand the issues well, as my father was a farmer who went bust in the 1960s when his credit with the bank ran out—that was before the CAP changed everything. Farmers’ work is vital to the rural community, our landscape and our food webs, and a free market is not an option, particularly given the level of support for agriculture almost everywhere else in the world.

I refer also to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to the similar amendment, Amendment 128, in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock. These would allow unspent funds allocated in one year to be carried over into future years. The Treasury, where I had the honour to be a Minister, will rightly never allow this. The wider ramifications for control of public expenditure are unacceptable and it could be a recipe for wasteful spending.

My main interest—perhaps “concern” would be a better word—in this group is Amendment 135 in the names of the noble Lords, Lords Lucas and Lord Addington. This seeks financial assistance for the provision of advice, with less emphasis than proposed on regulatory enforcement and penalties. Others assisting with the scrutiny of this Bill have talked about a revival of something like ADAS for this purpose. I do not support either proposal. What we need—I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree—is a professional implementation plan for all the new schemes, especially ELMS, with proper training and lead times, as you would find in a commercial context. It needs to be very clear and consulted on, with a view to successful, easy compliance and not just to satisfy interest groups. As much effort needs to be put into implementation as to policy formation. Much of that is, unfortunately, still to do, as the Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out earlier.

We can learn from the initial failures in the health and safety context when the EU six-pack was introduced; that included things like manual handling, risk assessment and, indeed, PPE. It was burdensome and chaotic, providing opportunities for consultants, who flourished on the complications. There was uproar, especially in small businesses, but under a very able official, Jenny Bacon, the system was radically simplified with good guidance written by the HSE. The political heat went out of the issue despite the inevitable burden of these EU laws. The use of digital for documents and seminars for farmers and land managers makes all of this easier today.

I would be very happy to offer the Minister and his officials thoughts from my long experience at Tesco—I register an interest, as I am still a shareholder. Simplicity, clarity and training were essential to successful projects, whatever the scale. We do not want or need to set up a costly new advisory service, or to reimburse the cost of advice.

Finally, I do not agree with Amendment 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Of course data should and will be collected, but this should be done as part of Defra’s normal research programme and in the context of a five-yearly review of food security .

[Lord Naseby [V]]

My Lords, those are some wise words from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, which I hope the Minister will reflect upon. There is no doubt that her previous experience, both as a Tesco director and as a Minister, is enormously helpful in planning something as difficult and challenging as this transition—and that is what we are talking about.

I can comment only on those farmers in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire, where all are worried—of course they are; I would be if I was any sort of farmer, but I am not. I think that Amendment 105 has the kernel of an answer; it may not be the ideal answer, but it is up to the Government to have a look at it.

The amendment covers the

“financial assistance available in the first year in which the Secretary of State intends to exercise the power under section 1”.

Secondly, it addresses the fact that the total amount provided in the preceding financial year should be adjusted for inflation. In other words, year 1 is whatever figure it is, and then there is inflation on top of that. The amendment proposes that in the third, fourth and fifth financial years there should be some forecast.

That seems to me a basis on which a farmer could work. The farmers I know in my part of the world, particularly those on the larger farms, are sophisticated businessmen. Although my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe says that Covid-19 may influence these figures, my view is that because this is such a big transition, from Europe to the UK, the farming community should not be asked to do that in this instance.

I note just a couple of other points en route. The noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench said that the Bill implied a reduction after one Parliament. I have been in the House long enough to know that no one Government can be committed to something by their predecessors, so I just do not see that as being the case at all. I am not sure where his evidence comes from.

Amendment 128 sounds good, but it is pretty unusual in any organisation for underspending to be automatically spent somewhere else. It is perfectly normal, if there is a budget and something has not come up to scratch, to spend it on an existing project, but not on another one.

I think that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is absolutely right in Amendment 133. You need to have a minimum of two months to discuss any forthcoming budget. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I remember starting life politically in a part of London where compulsory purchase orders were the methodology whereby you could dictate to landowners what should happen. They failed miserably, and I suspect her project on land use will fail equally.

I finish by saying that, in my judgment, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is full of detail but also full of despair. I would rather have the words of my noble friend Lord Trenchard—who is sitting there still, as I look across: there were a lot of wise words in his contribution.