Inheritance Tax, National Insurance and VAT

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that last autumn’s Budget has been a useful learning experience for the Government. Today’s debate has been about regional impact, especially in Northern Ireland, and I agree with almost everything that has been said about its devastating impact. The CBI has said today that pessimism is widespread across the private sector and that firms expect another significant fall in activity over the next three months.

The truth is that labour-intensive sectors such as retail and hospitality are suffering a triple whammy throughout the country, brought about first, by the changes in NICS; secondly, by the rise in the national minimum wage, especially for the young; and thirdly, by the costly and counterproductive new employment regulations pioneered by Angela Rayner and her union friends. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, Sainsbury’s announced last Thursday plans to cut 3,000 jobs— a bid to save money ahead of a £140 million leap in costs resulting from the Budget. Confidence has plummeted everywhere. Two of my favourite Wiltshire shops, in Salisbury and Tisbury, are among many shops and pubs that are now closing their doors. In light of these unfortunate events, can the Minister confirm whether the Government value these industries? If so, what will they do to help them across the UK?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, on securing this debate and on his opening speech. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions this evening. Due to the popularity of this debate, I know that noble Lords have been restricted to very short contributions. Fortunately, we have had previous opportunities to debate the measures covered by the Question during the Budget debate and the recent Conservative Party debate on agricultural property relief. We will of course have further such opportunities to discuss these important issues during the passage of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill and the Finance Bill. As I address the three measures covered by the Question this evening, I assure noble Lords that I have listened carefully to all the points made and that I understand and respect the concerns of all noble Lords.

I begin by considering the context of the decisions that we took on tax at the Autumn Budget, the reasons they were taken and the economic challenge that confronted this Government upon taking office. The Government inherited three distinct crises: a crisis in the public finances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said; a crisis in the public services; and a crisis in the cost of living. As the Chancellor has said, this was therefore a once-in-a-generation Budget, on a scale commensurate with the challenging inheritance that we faced.

The Government inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, consisting of a series of commitments made by the previous Government which they did not fund and did not disclose. Public services were also at breaking point, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in portakabins as school roofs crumbled, and rivers filled with polluted waste. Working people had suffered from the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, with inflation having reached 11%, coupled with a decision by the previous Government to freeze income tax thresholds, which cost working people some £30 billion.

Faced with this reality, any responsible Government would need to act. That is why this Government took action to wipe the slate clean, repair the public services, protect working people and invest in Britain. We did so in the fairest way possible, by keeping our promises to working people not to increase their national insurance, VAT or income tax. That involved taking some very difficult other decisions on spending, welfare and tax.

One such difficult decision we took in the Budget was the reforms to agricultural property relief, the first measure mentioned in today’s Question and addressed by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Thurlow and Lord McCrea, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. Under the previous system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets, introduced in 1992, was heavily skewed towards the wealthiest landowners and business owners. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief is claimed by just 7% of estates making claims. That amounts to just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants given the wider pressures on the public finances.

A secondary issue relates to the purchase of farmland. The reality today is that buying agricultural land is now one of the most well-known ways to shield wealth from inheritance tax. This has artificially inflated the price of farmland, locking younger farmers out of the market. That is why the Government have changed how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026, in a way that maintains significant tax relief for estates while supporting the public finances in a fair way. Under the new system, individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Above this amount, there will be 50% relief. That means inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. All estates making claims for these reliefs will continue to receive generous support, at a cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer in the first year.

The reliefs also sit on top of other spousal exemption and nil-rate bands which exist. Therefore, a couple with agricultural or business assets will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million of assets without any inheritance tax having to be paid. This change will apply in the same way across all nations and regions, and we expect that up to 520 estates across the UK will be affected in 2026-27. The Government are also investing £5 billion over this year and next to support farming and food security.

The second measure in today’s Question is the increase in employer national insurance contributions, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Morse, Lord Browne and Lord Elliott. To protect small businesses, the Government have also more than doubled the current employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 and expanded its eligibility. Of course, I understand that some of these measures mean asking businesses to contribute more, and we have consistently acknowledged that the impacts will be felt beyond business too. These are difficult decisions, and not ones we wanted to take. But, taken together, the measures mean that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities will either see no change or see their liabilities decrease; 865,000 employers will now not pay any national insurance at all, and over 1 million will pay the same or less than they did before.

These changes will apply in the same way across all nations of the UK. The Government are also setting aside support for the public sector across the UK of £5.1 billion by 2029-30. This support will be allocated to departments, and we have already confirmed that the devolved Governments will receive a share of the £4.7 billion the UK Government have set aside. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, the devolved Governments will receive this funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way. Exact allocations will be confirmed in due course; however, this is the normal operation of the funding arrangements between the UK Government and the devolved Governments.

The Government do not publish data covering detailed regional or national impacts. The location of the headquarters of a business and the location of its economic activity are not necessarily the same and are often split across multiple locations. However, the Government have published a tax impact and information note, which sets out a comprehensive UK-wide analysis of this tax measure.

The final measure covered in the Question is the introduction of VAT on private school fees, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Kempsell, Lord Weir and Lord McCrea. Nine out of 10 children in this country attend state schools; however, too many children do not get the opportunities they deserve because too often these schools are held back by a lack of investment. That is why the Government introduced VAT on private school fees from 1 January this year: to secure the additional funding needed to improve educational outcomes across the UK, in all nations and regions. Together with our changes to business rates, this will raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30 and just under £500 million in this year alone.

VAT is a reserved tax, and our objective is to maintain consistent VAT treatment of different types of schools across the UK. Therefore, all schools across the nations and regions that meet the definition of a private school, as set out in the Finance Bill, are within scope of this policy. Education is of course a devolved matter, and the circumstances of individual schools will vary across the UK.

Business rates are also fully devolved. Scotland has already enacted legislation removing charitable rate relief from private schools, and the Welsh Government have published a consultation. The Government do not expect that private schools will pass on the full amount of VAT in fees, and the increase in fees in recent years suggests that private school fees are highly demand inelastic.

I can also assure noble Lords that our changes will not impact pupils with the most acute special educational needs, where these can be met only in private schools. Currently, local authorities fund pupils’ places in private schools where their needs can be met only in a private school. In these cases, local authorities will be able to reclaim the VAT from the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, said, we have also chosen to support our diplomatic staff and serving military personnel, who are required to be mobile and are often posted overseas. That is why we have increased funding for the continuity of education allowance, which provides support for school fees to serving diplomatic and military personnel so that their children’s education is not disrupted.

To support children in the performing arts, the Government have also adjusted the music and dance scheme bursary contribution for families with income below £45,000, ensuring that the total parental fee contributions for these families remain unchanged.

This debate has addressed the difficult decisions this Government needed to take, but in doing so, we should not lose sight of the fact, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton said, that public services right across the UK will benefit significantly from and only as a result of those decisions. Overall, the devolved Governments received the largest spending settlement in real terms of any settlement since devolution. Each has seen their budget increase in real terms in 2025-26; and each will receive at least 20% more per person than equivalent government spending in the rest of the UK, a figure which rises to over 24% for the Northern Ireland Executive when including the funding received as part of the 2024 restoration package.

Across Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, this translates to £16 billion extra to invest in schools, housing, health and social care, and other public services. People in businesses in the devolved nations will also benefit from our UK-wide tax decisions taken in the Budget. For example, the uplift to the national living wage to £12.21 per hour will benefit an estimated 270,000 workers across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Government will continue to work in partnership with devolved Governments and English regions to drive economic growth and support working people. That is why we have established the Council of the Nations and Regions and the council of mayors. We are also working with local areas in England on the upcoming English devolution White Paper as they develop local growth plans, and we have put “place” at the heart of our upcoming modern industrial strategy.

This Government had to take difficult decisions in the Budget, but they were the right decisions to restore stability, protect working people and invest in Britain across all our nations and regions. As we take forward our strategy of stability, investment and reform, the Government remain committed to delivering a shared economic future for the whole of the United Kingdom, underpinned by higher and more sustainable economic growth. I look forward to continuing to work with all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on this vital agenda.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Will the Minister say a little bit more about retail and hospitality, which have been particularly impacted by the NICs changes? I am interested in understanding his attitude to that.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We had to take difficult decisions in the Budget. In multiple debates on that issue, the noble Baroness has never said whether she wants higher borrowing, higher taxes or lower spending as a result of the decisions that she is putting forward.

Economic Growth

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, creating the right conditions to promote growth is a critical challenge that we must address. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for initiating this debate so thoughtfully, and for bringing in social and cultural factors that are important to growth as well.

Thanks to the last Conservative Government, this Government inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7. They pledged that their first priority would be to increase economic growth. However, growth has since evaporated, and that follows the recorded 0.7% growth in the summer. During the UK investment summit, the Prime Minister said:

“You have to grow your business”.


Then two weeks later, in the Budget, the Chancellor increased national insurance contributions by a whopping £23.7 billion, including a regressive lowering of the threshold at which employer national insurance is paid.

This was widely seen as an attack on business—business is an easy target—and a jobs tax, so not conducive to growth. This week, it was announced that the early estimate of the number of payrolled employees for December 2024 decreased by 47,000 on the month. Then today, Sainsbury’s has sadly announced 3,000 job losses. These may be the harbinger of worse as businesses and social enterprises reduce hiring and increase prices. The debt figure for December was a shock too, especially as every pound of interest paid on debt comes off public services or investment.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that this has been devastating, because doom and gloom have become the order of the day, and that is a mistake because it dampens the animal spirits that are needed for enterprise and growth. Economic success is heavily influenced by morale. Yet, for six months, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor barely said a positive word about the economy or the fine prospects we believe we have in our country—the optimism that my noble friend Lord Horam called for. Instead, during the second half of the year, we saw the impact on consumer confidence, and the CBI indicated that manufacturers expected their output to fall during the beginning of 2025.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I like to look forward. Like him, I will try to tackle four areas but with fewer questions, which I hope the Minister will feel able to answer either today or in writing. First, on education and skills, the intrinsic link between improved education and skills and economic growth is widely accepted. Of course, this is a long-term endeavour. The Conservative Government devoted great effort to improving education, and this was reflected in amazing improvements in our PISA scores. However, the new Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will undermine academies and free schools, which have been at the heart of this revolution in standards. The proposed restrictions on academies’ pay, the exclusion of veterans and others bringing their strengths to teaching from other careers and the imposition of a Labour curriculum risk reversing those very improvements. Can the Minister explain how academies will continue to attract the best teachers? The IFS has warned that they may struggle. Is consideration being given to the impact of the new policies on school standards?

Investment in skills, apprenticeships and education is key to promoting both productivity and economic growth, and I am particularly glad that the Government have stated their intention of doing much better on vocational education. My time at Tesco convinced me of this and that there is a snobbery about universities that has held us back in this sector.

Secondly, on productivity, in the long term, the overall rate of growth in productivity is reflected in the rate of growth in the economy. The important metric is GDP per capita, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea explained. Concerningly, in the third quarter of 2024, productivity was estimated to be 1.8% lower than in the previous year—the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, told us that. The problem is partly cultural, and I believe that working from home and poor management in the public sector have contributed to this. In our Budget debate, I called for an internal productivity and growth assessment, modelled on the equality assessment, of every proposal for a new policy, an SI or a Bill. The Minister agreed to look at this and I wonder what conclusion he has reached. It feels as if its time has come and that it could be useful to the Treasury in prioritising the pro-growth policies that we need.

Thirdly, on regulation, possibly the most powerful contribution to productivity growth is by regulatory reform rather than just by trying to flex taxes. My noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton made a number of excellent suggestions on trade facilitation, involving things such as trusted trader schemes and getting the single trade window, which I was sorry to hear had got lost, back on track. My noble friend Lord Frost talked about the intellectual case for regulatory reform.

At the UK investment summit, the Prime Minister said he was

“determined to do everything in my power to galvanise growth”,

so I found it particularly baffling that the election manifesto promised to ramp up so many regulations, such as in football and in employment. Then, after figures indicated that the economy had flatlined, the Prime Minister wrote to regulators asking them to go for growth. That is obviously an indication that he fears that the regulators are hampering growth, and I think he is right. Unfortunately, that is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the hen coop. Those bodies need external challenge to tackle what my noble friend Lord Farmer called the “sticky web of regulation” and its negative effect on wealth creation. It is hard to deliver, as my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere said.

As the chair of the CBI, Rupert Soames, explained, government policies, particularly new employment regulations, will bruise businesses. The Government’s own impact assessment on its workers’ rights package estimated that it will cost companies £5 billion a year, and of course that comes on top of the NICs increases, the minimum wage rises and so on, which we have discussed at length—my noble friend Lord Petitgas is right that they were very disappointed by that. There is a real need to restore trust in business so that it can play its part in growth. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on economic growth of all the increased regulations that are coming forward? Does the Minister agree that keeping a tracker as part of his work on growth could be valuable and help us to prioritise the right areas?

My fourth and final area is infrastructure. A number of comments have been made on how we can improve investment, venture capital and so on, but I am going to focus on delivering major national infrastructure projects, because they are essential to the Government’s mission to kick-start growth. Unfortunately, the cost of building delays to projects exceeds those of our international peers. The FT has described modern UK infrastructure projects as containing a bewildering number of contractors, with multiple layers passing down cash and responsibilities protected by complicated legal agreements, and then you add environmental regulations. Spending £100 million on a bat tunnel along the edge of HS2 was ridiculous.

Analysis from BCG of four major projects—Crossrail, the Arundel A27 bypass, Hinkley Point and Royal Liverpool Hospital—has identified several themes that are driving costs and delays. The Government have announced that they are looking at judicial review, and I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about the BCC list of things that are ready to go. Poorly defined objectives overcomplicate projects, and the UK fails to look at key projects within a wider portfolio setting, identifying the most efficient path.

The Government have also failed to prioritise investment in critical energy infrastructure despite the fact that British companies pay the highest electricity prices in the developed world. The punitive taxes on the North Sea oil and gas industry, in an effort to achieve an ideological target of a decarbonised grid by 2030, will cut tax revenue and jobs and drive up business bills further, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Swire.

Can the Minister confirm how the Government will support nuclear energy projects? Currently the timeframe for grid connections for a new energy project can be as long as 10 years, so will he commit to national grid development? The Government must address infrastructure development delays and costs if they are to achieve their number one mission of growth.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words and I am very glad that the Government are building on the work we did on resilience. I am particularly delighted by the plans for an emergency dummy run and for the extra testing of alerts. Those practical measures are really important.

The noble Baroness also mentioned data sharing. We discussed that yesterday at the Statistics Assembly, which was recommended by Professor Denise Lievesley, as she may know. It comes through strongly that we still have a lot more to do on data sharing.

Can the noble Baroness tell us how much the inquiry has cost? Obviously, there are two parts to that. There is the large cost of the team of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, and all her lawyers. There is also the cost of the civil servants engaged, and of the supporting witnesses. I am very interested to know what we have spent so far and the estimate of the cost for the future, at this difficult time when we are trying to bear down on expenditure everywhere. I see the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, in his seat.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The inquiry regularly publishes details of the money that has been spent. The figures I have relate to the inquiry costs. The noble Baroness is correct that the organisations involved, particularly those with core participant status, are also likely to be putting in additional resources. I will try to establish whether we have an estimate of that.

From its establishment up to September 2024, the inquiry spent £124.2 million. As I noted in my initial response to these questions, the inquiry chair is delivering on the terms of reference agreed with the previous Government. She is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work and has been clear that she intends to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible. The Government also regularly publish their costs in relation to the inquiry response, and I will write to the noble Baroness on that.

Today’s debate has shown how it is hard to constrain costs when you have demands for the inquiry to look at every single aspect. This was a whole-society crisis—a whole-society emergency. It touched every aspect of society. That is not to downplay the cost of the inquiry. I note that the House of Lords report that was referenced earlier highlighted costs as one of its concerns.

National Insurance: Charity Sector

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I hope it is reassuring to the noble Baroness that the smallest charities and organisations should not see a rise in their national insurance contributions. If she has examples of citizens advice bureaux where they think this is not the case, I ask her to let me know. I am hugely aware of and in awe of the work that the citizens advice bureaux do in supporting some of our most vulnerable citizens.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the increase in NICs is highly regressive and the very general impact note does not make that clear. It disproportionately affects charities employing those on lower incomes or working part-time and, unfortunately, the employment allowance barely scratches the surface of the problem that has been created. Does the Minister think it is right to target the lower-paid in this way through the NICs changes?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My understanding of the NICs change is that it is about employer increases. This Government have not increased the tax paid by workers, including national insurance.

UK Entrepreneurs

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government are committed to attracting investment. That was illustrated in our recent International Investment Summit, where £65 billion was pledged in this country, showing confidence in the Government. I remind noble Lords that in the past few years, FTSE 100 companies have been sitting on a gross cash pile of close to £160 billion, with pre-tax profits ranging from £500,000 to around £2 billion. Shareholders’ dividends have been rising three times faster than wages. We should pay staff well and pay suppliers on time. If more money is spent, companies will make bigger profits—it is a win-win situation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have listened to the Minister. Does he acknowledge that the measures announced in the Budget, such as the increase in capital gains tax, make the UK look like a less attractive place for entrepreneurship?

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Does the Minister feel any shame that the Labour Party has constantly assured the country how devoted it is to propriety and the Ministerial Code, while the Speaker of the House of Commons has rightly criticised the Government for an unparalleled breach of that code? There was a major announcement overseas last week on the fiscal rules. As we have now seen, this formed a critical part of today’s Budget, allowing a huge increase in spending. What a contrast with the Government’s previous attitude. The Government could, and I believe should, have made a Statement to Parliament on Thursday on these changes. Will the Minister, in her position at the Cabinet Office, seek to persuade her colleagues that they should abide by conventions and the rules of the code? Will she apologise now for this unfortunate breach?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government take their obligations to Parliament extremely seriously. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said in the other place yesterday, the Speaker’s comments have been heard by Ministers across government, including in this House. As for Treasury Ministers making announcements in the other place, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made an Oral Statement to Parliament on Monday about the fiscal rules and Treasury Ministers answered questions in the other place yesterday. Today, the Chancellor set out in Parliament the full details of the Budget, which will fix the foundations of our economy. Anyone who was watching the faces of the Opposition Front Bench will know that most of the measures were clearly a surprise. The leader of the Opposition seemed particularly glum as he looked at his phone for his revised lines.

Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this important matter. I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for warning me of his intention and for his clear and very amusing explanation of recent history.

I thank the other speakers, including my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, the distinguished chair of our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which does such a wonderful and often unheralded job in sifting through thousands of SIs, both negative and affirmative, the latter being the subject of this Bill.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that impact assessments are important—I always used to say that from the Back Benches, as many will remember.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, to the Dispatch Box for the Cabinet Office and very much look forward to hearing from her.

The arguments have been well made. However, I believe that the Bill as drafted has major constitutional implications. We need to consider it very carefully and, as far as possible, in a spirit of non-partisanship. The most significant effect of the Bill if enacted is that it would leave the House of Lords with greater theoretical power than the House of Commons across significant sections of rules and regulations. Is this credible? Much as I love this House, I fear the answer is no.

I have a number of other points to make. Having lived with fellow Peers through the relentless increase in the use of secondary legislation, I have sympathy with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Under the provisions of the Bill, only the House of Lords would be capable of triggering a mechanism to amend a statutory instrument. There are no provisions in the Bill that would allow concerned MPs to instigate a change themselves. It would be decidedly odd for elected Members of Parliament to find themselves in this position of inferiority; it would undermine the primacy of the House of Commons.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, claims that the provisions in the Bill, which would require the Commons to debate the concerns of the House of Lords, would ensure that the balance of power remained as it should. However, as we know, Parliament is a busy place and the House of Commons schedule is already packed. The mechanism suggested here would only add to that in an unpredictable manner.

Further, it concerns me that the Bill might enable an interventionist or troublesome House of Lords—perish the thought—to obstruct the actions of a Government by amending a succession of draft affirmative statutory instruments. While the noble Lord believes that in practice the suggested mechanism would not be used more frequently than regret Motions, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that is the case.

At first sight, Clause 2, which nobody has mentioned, looks unobjectionable. I do remember my fury at the business department when I inherited SIs that needed to be corrected because of typos or sloppy drafting. However, there is an unfortunate lack of precision in the Bill. What would constitute a “substantive error” as opposed to an error? I might also ask how a Minister could correct an instrument to achieve a so-called “intended effect” when he or she has no defined means of ascertaining the intention of Parliament.

I believe that the lawyers who draft statutory instruments should get them right first time—a principle of mine. It stands to reason that, should we make it easier to repair errors in secondary legislation, there would be less pressure to ensure that the initial drafting was clear and effective. Further, if it became easier to tweak secondary legislation, I believe, from my experience as both a civil servant and a Minister in many departments, including the Cabinet Office, that it would reduce the impetus to craft good primary legislation.

We have an ever-growing problem with the amount and content of secondary legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, called it an “addiction”, while the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly mentioned the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will introduce huge delegated powers, including alignment with EU law, on matters of real substance. Similarly, the Water (Special Measures) Bill grants significant power to Ministers to make regulations under the legislation, and the Government expect this House to pass it without sight of the draft regulations.

We cannot allow what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee terms “skeleton legislation” to become the norm. We should also look back at the agriculture and environment Bills, which on our watch also overuse delegated powers, as I argued at the time. The fact is that Governments of all colours should know what they are doing when they introduce Bills and not just take wider powers to do what they like. I sound like the grandmother that I am but, when I was a civil servant, we drafted the statutory instruments alongside the legislation and consulted on them as well. A power to think again could provide yet another excuse for initial sloppiness in parent primary legislation.

For the reasons I have stated, this side of the House has doubts about the Bill. Of course, as part of comprehensive reform of the House of Lords, there might be scope for increasing a second Chamber’s control of legislation, and that could include secondary legislation. That could mean better use of the wide experience and expertise of many noble Lords. However, that is a much bigger topic, requiring widespread agreement across the political parties on the way forward. I believe we need more comprehensive reform, rather than bits and pieces—one of the reasons I regret the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, although that is not for today.

In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for leading such an important debate. However, I have outlined a number of concerns that I believe show that this particular Bill should not proceed.

Procurement Act 2023

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change procurement guidance and operations under the Procurement Act 2023.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Procurement Act 2023 aims to create a simpler and more transparent regime for public sector procurement that will deliver better value for money and reduce costs for businesses and the public sector. I commend the noble Baroness on the Benches opposite for the commitment to small businesses, in particular, in the Act that she personally championed. The new regime will now go live on 24 February next year—a short delay of four months from the previous go-live date—in order to allow time for a new national procurement policy statement to be produced that clearly sets out this Government’s priorities for public procurement and economic growth.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy. I remind the House that, in June, Prime Minister Starmer said that his number one mission was economic growth, so it is ironic that in addition to the Employment Rights Bill, the Government are planning to damage economic growth by delaying the Procurement Act 2023. Why are they adapting the rules on procurement to help their union paymasters and to encourage costly equality and green add-ons? My concern is the resulting red tape, which is against the direction that the Prime Minister set—yesterday he said that he wants to get rid of red tape —and which I believe will harm efficiency and the path to growth.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I absolutely and wholeheartedly refute the noble Baroness’s suggestion. I would also note that, last week, I was criticised for continuing with measures announced by the previous Government and this week I am being criticised for their delay. I hope that noble Lords from across the House agree that we should look at such matters on a case-by-case basis to ensure that this country gets back on the stable footing it needs and deserves.

Public Sector Productivity

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve productivity across the public sector.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, you might say that securing growth in productivity is the most important issue we face—it is certainly the most important economic issue. This is because in the long run the overall rate of growth in productivity is reflected in the rate of growth in the economy, and from economic growth virtually everything else flows. We are debating public sector productivity today, but many of the same problems are found in the private sector.

I acknowledge that there are a few utopians who might think that this is a mercenary view of life, but a very large majority of us want to be better off personally and to benefit from improvements in the provision of public services—education, transport, healthcare and defence, for example. Better services need money, and a bigger economy provides more money via taxes. The best measure of our economic prosperity is probably GDP per head, and on this the recent history is disquieting. GDP per head in the UK has scarcely risen since the start of the financial crisis in 2007 and it is among the worst in the OECD.

It reflects the fact that productivity suffered a huge hit during the financial crisis, partly because of the importance of financial services to the UK economy. After a modest recovery, matters deteriorated again during Covid. As the IMF said in May:

“Although the UK has done better than peers in terms of total hours worked, the drop in labor productivity growth, the key driver of living standards—from around 2 percent pre-GFC to around ½ percent thereafter—has been noticeably bigger than in other advanced economies”.


Although the IMF refers to labour productivity rather than productivity, the two measures are closely related.

Part of our problem is cultural. Many—probably most—of us do not think of efficiency much of the time. In particular, there is a wilful disregard in the body politic for the costs of bureaucracy and monitoring. Like other noble Lords, I take part in the debates in this House on legislation. I have taken careful note in recent years and I regret to say that virtually every amendment to a Bill that we discuss would, if accepted, have the effect of increasing the cost of doing things, reduce efficiency and/or hit growth and dynamism. SIs and guidance can be even worse. Do noble Lords pause to consider whether the cost of the amendments they advocate is proportionate to the benefit hoped for? I fear the answer is often no.

The truth is that much of what government does affects the private sector, so the public sector contributes in two ways to the productivity problem: in what it does to others, such as in the huge build-up of financial, energy and environmental legislation in recent years, and in what it does in the way it organises itself.

We need to limit our interventions to matters where it is really needed, such as safety. We have too big a rulebook and that means a bigger, less efficient state. We need to change the culture. If I were put in charge, I would require a new productivity and growth assessment, like the equality assessment, on every proposal for a new policy, an SI or a Bill. Indeed, it should replace the equality assessment, which has had its day. Productivity assessments could be short, but a requirement for them would make our civil servants and lawmakers view changes through productivity spectacles. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this. It could make her and her Treasury colleagues new allies in the pursuit of value for money.

I am afraid that the figures for public sector productivity are even less positive than those for overall productivity. As the graph in the excellent Library Note makes clear, public sector productivity is significantly lower than in 1997, with the modest increase in the 2010s entirely eliminated by Covid and with the NHS a particular concern. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on what can be done. I believe working from home has also been a productivity sapper, with almost comic inefficiencies. As we heard from Guy Adams of the Mail recently, only 17% of the Business and Trade civil servants were coming in to work in their glorious Old Admiralty Building.

What else can be done? I am leaving to one side the obvious points, such as improved skills and education and the timely application of capital, so that I can make less obvious points from my own experience in business, the Civil Service and as a Minister in four departments, including the Treasury.

The first change needed is better management. The public sector needs fewer layers with simpler, flatter structures and wider spans of control. In the Cabinet Office when I was a Minister, one-third of staff were one on one. Government is also top-heavy. When I was at Tesco, I noticed that our considerable success was achieved without the CEO having a large private office staffed by people with their own agendas. This helped with clear focus and direction and a deep understanding of the business. It also limited the office politics. The contrast with Downing Street could hardly be greater.

I come back to the management of the public sector. There is a need for focus, which I think the Government are seeking with their new missions, but also for more delegation. For example, the Institute for Government has found that allowing nurses to self-roster reduces turnover. Other key areas where the public sector could learn from commerce are to mandate more comprehensive induction training for outsiders, who often fail in the Civil Service but bring vital skills, and training on easing out poor performers fairly. This seems likely to be even harder under Labour’s new employment rights Bill.

We also need a culture and working methods that help us to avoid mistakes. This includes both big things, such as HS2, the failings of the Post Office, and infected blood, and smaller things, such as letting some of the wrong people out of prison last month or setting the heating systems incorrectly in public buildings. We need to learn how to get things right first time because it avoids waste and mistakes. AI is making that easier—for example, on diagnostics from hospital scans. Equally, in my book it is okay to take risks and fail, but only if you learn from the experience. At the top of Tesco, we spent a lot of time in stores modestly carrying out routine tasks, observing what went wrong and seeing how policies and retail productivity could be improved.

We have a very big canvas for improvement. A recent paper by the University of Exeter Business School discusses the fact that virtually the same services were and are provided in similar NHS organisations and how this duplication allowed substantial efficiency improvements to be identified and made, amounting to £1 billion. The authors argue persuasively that the same approach could be used elsewhere in the thousands of organisations in the public sector. It is a great pity that, in awarding £9.4 billion to the public sector in above-inflation pay rises, the Government failed to impose productivity requirements on public sector workers. I know from experience that restrictive practices are hard to tackle and easier to remove with the warmth of a pay rise.

Public policy also effects productivity in the private sector. I said earlier that legislation often includes measures which reduce productivity unnecessarily. I turn to another current example: net zero. A lot can be done with small steps that have wide application, such as the transition to LED bulbs and putting porches on to retail stores, which quickly pay for themselves in lower energy bills. However, some of the measures to counter global warming now being taken by this Government—in particular, shutting the North Sea early—will hasten net zero neither in the UK nor globally. It will, however, ensure that the UK’s net exports are reduced, and it will reduce overall UK productivity, thereby making us all poorer, most notably the workers on oil rigs, as their trade union has pointed out. This is all for no rational reason. Public regulation will have reduced the productivity of the private sector and made it more difficult to deliver the growth and wealth we need for the future.

Improving productivity is a subject I feel passionate about because it can unlock great benefits. To be honest, it is rather a big subject for a short debate, but I am very keen to hear other ideas, build up alliances and ensure that the need to increase productivity is properly considered in all public sector decisions. I thank all those who are kind enough to speak and especially look forward to hearing from our new Minister.

Public Procurement: Data Offshoring

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I can give a bit more detail on what the Bill will focus on. I cannot give a precise date for when it will be brought forward, but it was in the King’s Speech, so we can anticipate it coming forward in due course in the relatively near future. The Bill will make crucial updates to the legacy regulatory framework by expanding the remit of regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and mandating increased incident reporting, which will give the Government better data on cyberattacks, including where companies or organisations have been held to ransom.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the new Procurement Act will bring more transparency and new entry into contracting, which will help with these kinds of outsourcing and security issues. Will the Minister ensure that the disappointing delay in the commencement of that Act into next year is minimised? In the meantime, will the model services contracts that she mentioned ensure that patient data is kept in the UK or in a country with which we have a robust data- sharing agreement?