National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

18: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert “£130 for the tax year 2025/26 and £96 from the tax year 2026/27”
Member’s explanatory statement
This forms part of a package of amendments in the name of Baroness Noakes to allow for a phased introduction of the reductions to the secondary threshold.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 18 and to speak to Amendments 21, 24 and 25 in this group. These amendments are designed to make the national insurance increases in the Bill more manageable by businesses, as they are going to be picking up the lion’s share of the costs of national insurance in the first instance. The amendments do not change the overall approach of raising the rate and lowering the secondary earnings threshold; instead, they seek to phase in the secondary threshold reduction over two years, rather than taking the “big bang” approach taken in the Bill. The reduction in the secondary threshold is the larger of the two main changes in the Bill, raising roughly one and a half times the amount raised by raising the national insurance rate of contributions.

I should declare my financial interests in a wide range of listed companies, many of which operate in the UK and are therefore affected by the Bill. These include shareholdings in Next plc—which gives me a neat segue into the fact that I was prompted to table these amendments after listening to a “Today” programme interview with my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, in his capacity as chief executive of Next, who argued for delayed implementation. I was delighted when my noble friend then added his name to my amendment, along with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I very much look forward to his contribution to the debate.

I was particularly struck when listening to the “Today” interview by my noble friend’s analysis of the financial impact of the changes on part-time jobs and those that pay at or around the minimum wage. I think he said that it will add roughly 2% to the cost of employing higher-paid workers, but for part-time and lower-paid workers the figure is 6.5%. This, of course, is before you factor in the minimum wage hike, which will be coming in at the same time and will more than double the impact on certain kinds of employees, particularly younger ones.

I spoke about the regressive effect of the Bill at Second Reading and I was frankly astonished that the Minister’s Back-Benchers were not jumping up and down about the impact of the national insurance changes on the employment prospects of key groups such as female part-timers and young people. His Back-Benchers seem to have bought the disingenuous line, which has been run by the Chancellor and, indeed, the Minister, that these extra national insurance costs will be borne by businesses. The plain truth is that employers will not simply absorb the cost increases, as the Office for Budget Responsibility made abundantly clear: employees will pay, in the form of reduced hours, reduced pay increases or job losses. We will all pay in higher prices and, if that keeps interest rates higher for longer, home owners will pay too.

Part of the problem from the business perspective is the sheer scale of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, hitting them in just a few months’ time, at exactly the same time as the minimum wage hike. I expect that the Minister will say that the minimum wage increase is not in this Bill, but the plain fact is that businesses are facing a double whammy. Very few businesses can shrug off an increase of well over 10% in their payroll costs. The likelihood is that businesses will take rapid action to try to curtail the financial impact, but that action may well be suboptimal when looked at over a longer timeframe.

Recruitment freezes are the quickest way to put a lid on costs and they are already a feature of today’s uncertain business environment. The recruitment sector is therefore struggling and will doubtless have to reduce its own headcount in due course. If hours are reduced for part-time staff, that will have a particularly hard impact on women and their families, who are often dependent on the additional income that such jobs bring. Pay increases, other than for those on the minimum wage, will probably be held down, and most families are already struggling with inflation and will be hard hit if wages go down in real terms. We can also expect employers to reduce headcount. This is already happening, as a glance at the business pages of the media will confirm.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is not here today, may well run his argument that this is entirely healthy, because it will encourage businesses to invest to reduce their reliance on labour and thereby increase productivity and release workers to be redeployed elsewhere in the economy. As I have said before, that is a nice theory, but it fails at a practical level. Businesses need confidence in the country’s economic prospects before they invest, and most business confidence surveys are well into negative territory. Many investment decisions are already on hold or being cancelled. In addition, we have high employment at present, thanks to the previous Government, but job vacancies are relatively low and falling. A more realistic outcome, at least in the short term, is that there will be fewer people in employment. The OBR calculated the impact of the national insurance changes as a loss of 50,000 jobs, but it could easily be higher than that.

My amendment is about ameliorating the short-term impact of the Government’s national insurance changes on businesses, so that they have more time to plan how they will absorb the increases alongside the additional minimum wage costs. If businesses have more time to work out the best way to cope, the impact on jobs and pay could well be softened. My amendment merely delays the full impact of the national insurance changes for an extra year, by phasing in the reduction in the secondary threshold over two years rather than make businesses face the whole impact at once next April. I am quite sure that the business community would prefer an even longer phasing in and would prefer it to apply to the increased rate of contributions as well as to the reduction in the threshold. My amendments are an attempt at a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.

[Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly my role as chief executive of Next plc, a company that employs over 40,000 people, of whom 22,000 are part-time. It is a job that I have had for 22 years, which I think makes me the longest-serving chief executive in the FTSE 100. I hope that I am able to bring that experience to inform the debate, which is why I rise to speak to all the amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, to which I have added my name.

I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. To that end, I recognise the Government’s need to balance their books, the importance of their doing that, and that the parlous state of public finances cannot be wholly laid at the door of the current Administration. Nor can I see, in principle, why the employer national insurance threshold should disproportionately benefit lower-paid jobs, as it does at the moment. In principle, I can see no reason for that; it is the speed at which the change is happening that concerns me.

The problems caused by that speed are particularly acute because the axe falls hardest and disproportionately on entry-level part-time work, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out. The way in which the change in the threshold works is something of a poll tax on jobs. Poll taxes do not have a great history of success, but the cost of around £600 is the same whether you earn £9,000 or £900,000. So, the combined effect of this increase on a job paying £60,000 would be 2%; on a part-time job paying £12,000, it would be 6.5%.

That change needs to be taken in the context of the rise in the national living wage. My noble friend Lady Noakes is absolutely right that, together, they mean that the figure for entry-level part-time working—jobs in hospitality, retail and care homes—will go up by 13% in April this year. It is impossible to see how this can result in anything other than a reduction in opportunities to join the workforce; indeed, it will result in some people having to leave the workforce. I hope that, going forward, these types of changes and the work of the Low Pay Commission are considered in conjunction with each other. It seems to me that these two changes have come in at the same time without co-ordination.

Unfortunately, this change comes at a time when the employment market is at something of a tipping point. Again, it is no one in particular’s fault—it is the employment cycle—but every economic indicator that I can see, through both the ONS and my own work, suggests that the labour market is hardening. In every single discipline in the business that I work for, whether it is computer programming or product development for stores, the applicant to vacancy ratio is rising.

Let me give a flavour of that. Last year, when we took on temporary staff in the run-up to Christmas, the ratio of applicants to vacancies was up by 50% on the previous year. In the previous year, we had nine applicants for every shop job; last year, it was more than 13. In this environment, the speed of change will dramatically affect the national insurance threshold change’s impact on both people and inflation.

Starting with the social impact, it is inevitable that businesses will have to accelerate their plans to increase productivity. There are plenty of opportunities to increase productivity, mechanisation and artificial intelligence both being at the forefront of those opportunities; but one way or another, that increase in productivity means fewer jobs. The time we have to implement those changes will directly affect the social impact of those efforts to increase productivity. The faster the change occurs, the less time businesses and individuals will have to manage down employee numbers through the natural turnover of staff, which is the normal way we would try to implement any improvement in productivity, particularly in part-time work. Natural turnover of staff is quite high; if you can manage such changes through natural turnover, it dramatically reduces the impact on human beings.

It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is not here, because I have heard him say that labour becoming more productive—that is, going out into the workforce and finding other, more productive things to do—can be a good thing. It can, but it will take people time to find those additional jobs, and time is what these amendments ask for.

Last Wednesday, my noble friend Lady Lawlor highlighted the acute pressure that the threshold change will put on retailers. She was right. On that day, Morrisons said that, in the light of the Budget, it would have to go harder and deeper in its drive to reduce costs. It joined Sainsbury’s, which has already announced 3,000 job losses.

The second reason for phasing in this change is its effect on inflation. Again, it might be helpful if I give the perspective of the company I work for. It is in the fortunate position whereby the growth we are able to enjoy, the margins we have and the productivity gains we think we will be able to achieve, collectively mean that we will need to pass on an increase in prices of only 1% this year, as a result of the Budget changes. Had we not had those margins to absorb the changes, and had we not had those productivity gains, that figure would have been just over 4%.

In other industries, in particular the food industry, margins are much narrower than those enjoyed in fashion retail. My concern is that everything I am hearing from that industry means that we will see price rises in the order of 4%. Were the threshold change to be phased in over two years, that inflationary spike would reduce price rises to closer to the Bank of England’s 2% target. That in turn would pave the way for a faster reduction in interest rates, which is in everyone’s interest—including the country’s biggest borrower, the Government. Phasing in the change would reduce the social and inflationary costs of this increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord set out some figures that are based on his assumptions, not the Government’s assumptions. I have no reason to dispute his maths or the computing power of Microsoft Excel, but I do not think I can commit Treasury resources to checking the figures in his own spreadsheet.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all my noble friends for taking part in this debate and supporting these amendments. They were put forward as a constructive way to deal with what could be some very damaging impacts caused by the Government’s legislation.

I was confused by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, saying that she is against the Bill, so she does not want to engage in ways of making things better. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we believe that what we are here to do is try to make policies better, even though we disagree with virtually all the Bills the Government are putting forward at the moment. Our job is to engage constructively and, certainly, to try to avoid damaging aspects.

My noble friend Lord Wolfson spoke about being able to pass on price increases of 1%; he has an amazing luxury, because not all retailers can do that. At the weekend, I got talking to a local businessman who owns a number of shops. Most of his workforce are part-time staff. He employs quite a lot of people in and around our villages, and in the neighbouring villages, where he has other shops. He said that he does not know what to do. He cannot increase prices because the goods he sells do not lend themselves to significant price increases. The only thing he can do is to reduce hours or numbers. These measures means that our local economies—things that are really important to people—will be damaged by less income for local families. They are having really significant impacts, whether at the large end of business or the very smallest end.

I regret the Minister just saying again and again that he has to repair the finances and put more money into public services because he wants to protect working people. The one thing he is not doing with these changes is protecting working people. I sincerely hope that, between Committee and Report, the Government will think about whether they can find ways of making this Bill less damaging. We are not arguing that the Bill should not exist—we do not believe that that is our role, and we did not vote against it at Second Reading and certainly would not have done so—but there are many ways of softening its edges. I hope the Government will consider that between now and Report.

With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 22, 39 and 53 in my name in this group, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe have added their names. I shall also speak to Amendments 6 and 33, tabled by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes respectively.

Rather than taking a sectoral approach, about which others spoke passionately last week, my three amendments focus on the size of businesses and organisations impacted by the measures in the Bill, specifically those categorised as small businesses, which means that they employ between 10 and 50 full-time staff. I should again declare my interests as set out in the register, as I advise and invest in a number of businesses of this size, predominantly start-ups and scale-ups. These are the companies that grow and create jobs at the fastest rate and, through their size and agility, seize the nettle of productivity. If I may mix my metaphors for a moment, these are the acorns that seek to become unicorns or, at the very least, sturdy oaks.

The Department for Business and Trade reports that there are some 220,000 businesses across the UK that employ between 10 and 50 staff—that is 4.3 million of the 28 million jobs in the private sector and they generate £780 billion in annual turnover. However, this group involves not just fast-growing early-stage start-ups but a huge swathe of family and local businesses spread across the country and, indeed, businesses that have been struggling to keep their heads above water in what have been five very difficult trading years.

While the Government have sought to protect the majority of our micro-businesses, those employing between one and nine staff, from rising NICs, they have left all other small businesses exposed to these sudden and dramatic increases. In terms of impact, the Government tell us that 250,000 employers will see their NICs decrease, 940,000 will see theirs increase, while about 800,000 employers will see no change. This has allowed the Government to claim that the majority of employers will see no increase. With respect, that is deeply misleading. The question that matters is what proportion of jobs will attract increased national insurance contributions. I ask the Minister that question. Can he confirm, if he does not have the numbers at hand, that in fact the number is close to 80%?

I turn to the financial impact of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 to small businesses. For businesses of 25 staff paying the national full-time median salary, which is put at £37,000 by the ONS, their NICs bill will rise from £90,000 to £110,000. That is an increase of more than 20%.

However, most small businesses, given their nature and stage of development, pay less than the median national average. For them, the increases get even steeper. For those employing 25 staff and paying an average salary of £25,000, as is common out in the regions, their NICs bill will rise by no less than 30%. For those employing 50 staff at that salary, they face an eye-watering 33% increase. As we know, the main culprit for those outsized increases is Clause 2: the brutal and, in my view, economically illiterate drop in the per-employee threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. Ironically, this hits the lowest-paid jobs the hardest. In short, it is a regressive tax.

Then we come to retail and hospitality, with thousands of outfits that rely on part-time shift workers. For those employing 20 part-timers, typically earning £300 per week, their NICs bill goes up by an extraordinary 70%. I will stop there with the examples but noble Lords, including the Minister, will be delighted to know that I have here all the spreadsheets to prove it; I will happily share them out later. In the interest of transparency, on the impact for 5 April, I strongly suggest that the Government have the honesty to publish these figures.

These increases are of course bad news for the working person, especially the 4 million of them who work in small businesses. They rather grate against Rachel Reeves’s statement this morning about kick-starting the economy. Let me turn to my Amendment 22, which seeks to address this in what I hope noble Lords will agree is a measured, proportionate way to help protect our small businesses. In short, the per-employee threshold would remain at £9,100 for those employing fewer than 25 staff, while those employing fewer than 50 but more than 25 staff would see their threshold reduced to £7,500. Somewhat reluctantly, I have left the £9,000 threshold for all businesses employing more than 50 staff.

By my calculations, the nominal cost to the Treasury of this key amendment would be less than £2 billion—that is, to support and sustain 4 million jobs and almost £800 billion in turnover. I humbly suggest that this amendment would more than pay for itself in economic growth and increased revenues to the Exchequer. Commencing Clause 2 without undertaking a full impact assessment on small businesses—addressed by Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which I fully support—strikes me as reckless.

I turn now, much more briefly, to my Amendment 53, which addresses the increase in the employment allowance. Clause 3 is designed to soften the increase in NICs from Clauses 1 and 2. It offsets the costs but, having crunched the numbers, it does so only for those employing seven staff or fewer. My Amendment 53 would raise the employment allowance from £10,500 to £15,000 for all small businesses employing fewer than 25 staff. This would help around 200,000 businesses across the country. I estimate that the cost to the Treasury would be less than £1 billion. Again, I argue that such an amendment would more than pay for itself in the medium term.

I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the amendments in this group, given the severity of these increases to SMEs and the potential damage to both jobs and economic growth. I have spoken to Amendments 22, 39 and 53.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 33 in this group; I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Howard of Rising for adding their names to it. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is unfortunately unable to join us for the early part of this Committee. He very much regrets that he is not able to take part because he cares a lot about the fate of small and medium-sized businesses.

My amendment would delay the commencement of the Bill, and therefore the extra national insurance contributions, until the tax year after an impact assessment focusing on the impact of the Bill on smaller businesses has been published. My amendment is similar to Amendment 59, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which was debated on our first day in Committee. Amendment 59 required an ex-post impact assessment, while mine is on an ex-ante basis. Amendment 59 also used a rather broad definition of SMEs, including those with employees of up to 250; my amendment is more granular and focuses on the smaller end of the SME spectrum, which is where most SMEs are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, with respect to all the amendments in this group, with the exception of that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I repeat what I said last time: these amendments are designed to increase the complexity of the system and that is a very bad idea. I can assure noble Lords that, right now, tax-avoidance accountants are sharpening their pencils with glee at the possibility of more complexity being introduced into this structure. It is a very bad idea and we should not be doing it.

If we want to support small business, we should do it directly by deciding what subsidies or benefits should be given. Playing around with the tax system or, in this case, the national insurance system, is a bad idea. I will not say this again, because we have a series of other attempts to increase complexity coming in later amendments—so, please, let us not do this. It is bad for the tax system, bad for the national insurance system and a bad way to achieve the goals set out.

I now turn to the important amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The problem with it is that it is seriously underspecified. She does not say whether the examination of the effects of the national insurance changes should take place in the context of the pre-government Budget situation, or should take account of some measures in the Budget or of the Budget as a whole. If we take the Budget as a whole, the examination by the OBR shows that employment will increase over the relevant period. What the noble Baroness is doing is taking just one part of the actual economic package represented by the Budget and saying, “Let us look at this in isolation, even though this part funds the other part”—the expenditure decisions of the £26 billion injection of demand into the economy in the next fiscal year.

In that context, this amendment is seriously under- specified and impractical. We need to understand whether she wishes to look at just one side of the equation, how revenue is raised, or the other, how revenue is spent. Surely the correct thing to do is to put both together to see the overall impact of the policy represented by the Budget. I am afraid that the amendment is unsatisfactory, in that it is seriously underspecified.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I will briefly respond to that. I am asking for an impact assessment of the Bill. The Bill does not incorporate the whole Budget; it incorporates one policy decision, which is the focus of my amendment. It is clear that I am open to drafting suggestions. I have already spent some time with the noble Lord today in another committee on drafting improvements and I am sure that, between us, we could come up with some better words.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as an employer.

It is incredible to me that His Majesty’s Government should be seeking to impose an increase in national insurance for employers without taking a proper look at what the effect will be. The extra costs will be difficult to cope with for all businesses, but disproportionately so for small businesses. They lack the flexibility and the ability to manoeuvre that can exist in larger corporations. This will be especially true for smaller manufacturing businesses, which are being hammered by the Government from more than one direction.

The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, was good enough to say that it is reasonable to set out the rationale for the points we want to make. In my view, this is important, as the increase in national insurance comes on top of many other things that impede business. By itself, it might be bearable, in so far as any tax is bearable, but, on top of everything else—some of which I will mention—it is a significant problem, especially for those smaller companies that this amendment is about.

Before going into the detail of my arguments, I wish to endorse the comments made by noble Lords—most recently the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—that exemptions that complicate tax structure are a bad thing in principle. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out on the first group of amendments, there are cases where they are justified.

One reason why the proposed increase in national insurance will be particularly difficult for smaller manufacturing businesses, and why an impact assessment is needed, is electricity and gas costs in this country, which, roughly speaking, are double those of our competitors in Europe. This is caused by the lunatic rush to net zero which, among other things, has nearly destroyed the steel industry, which is now on its last legs.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not a Pollyanna; the Government have to raise money to deliver public services and they have to make decisions. We are hopefully not in the realm of reciting the £22 billion black hole. I have heard it so many times from the Minister. He is a very clever man but, nevertheless, even he reiterates the line occasionally.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Occasionally? It is more than occasionally.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am getting gently heckled by my noble friend Lady Noakes. It may be more than occasionally. On a serious point, we know that some taxes are easy to raise quickly; one is fuel duty and this is another. I implore the Minister that this will have real consequences for many years. It is having consequences now in displacement activity that is not going to the most vulnerable people.

I know that the Labour Party would not inflict that sort of upset on people; most people in the Labour Party are decent and community minded, and want to do the best for the local community. I know, having served with Labour Members of Parliament in the other place, that they care about their local community and their constituents.

I would just ask the Minister to think about this again, particularly this case of people who are trying to do their best for their fellow citizens. All these amendments are extremely compelling, so I ask him to reconsider. It will not show weakness, but will show strength, magnanimity and the ability to govern wisely. I think he should consider pushing that forward because it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

So it is important that we have a proper analysis of the employment impact of these measures that looks specifically at the impact on the private wealth-creating sector, as distinct from additional jobs in the public sector, however needed they may be. It is important that we do not simply take the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—that more jobs will be created overall—as a vindication of the fact that this has no impact on employment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I want to comment briefly on whether we should have impact assessments, which has been a theme running through a number of amendments.

I know that the Minister has his set formula, which he will repeat again now. When he responded to the earlier amendments, he talked about finding precedents for not having impact assessments. I will go back and look at the details of those in Hansard, but, from memory, none of those changes produced the outcry that these sets of changes have produced. Businesses, charities and hospices are all telling us that this is a major disaster. So I believe that his precedents are not on all fours in this particular case; we ought not to be fobbed off by the fact that the Treasury has, over time, found it inconvenient to produce impact assessments. I cannot think of anything quite as damaging in the past to large sectors of the employed population and their employers, so we should not regard the Minister’s set formulation as an end to the story on impact assessments.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I just ask: what are the Government afraid of? This is a sensible suggestion about assessing what the effect might be of an enormous change to every business and charity organisation in the country. If it is such a good thing—we are told that it is—verify it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. If I had spotted the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark in time, I would have signed it because it makes absolute sense. There is a pressure created, when one knows that a review is coming afterwards, to think through actions now. All in this Committee recognise that this Bill deals with the weakest of the weak. As there are two Bills, this one and one in the other place, either of which could be used to manage a remedy, I should have thought the Government might have been able to see a way through this.

I wanted to mention a procedural thing, just as a comment on the statement made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I hope that he realises that if he does not withdraw his amendment at this stage, he will not be able to bring it back on Report. Some people are not clear on that element of the procedure, so I mention it simply in case it guides what he might wish to do.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

His amendment is Amendment 67, so he is not going to be moving it until day four.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

He said, “I beg to move”.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

He cannot move it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Problem solved; I am back in my place. Those are the only comments that I wanted to make.

Public Sector Productivity

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on securing this debate and for her masterly introduction. Public sector productivity, or the lack of it, is holding back the UK’s overall productivity growth and thereby putting a damper on our economic growth. In the time available, I will not concentrate on the soaring numbers of civil servants, the clear issues with working from home—which was addressed by my noble friend Lord Patten—or the inflationary public sector pay deals which have shockingly been awarded in return for zero productivity. Instead, I want to focus on two areas: state-owned economic activity and the NHS.

We are only a hundred days into this new Government, but there is one clear direction of travel—we can expect more state-controlled economic activity. The Government are already laying the foundations for renationalising the railways, the energy system operator has just been brought into the public sector and GB Energy is being set up with £8 billion in order to take an active role in energy generation. I doubt that the Government’s ambitions will stop there, but they need to learn the lessons from history.

Before 1979, we had a lot of nationalised industries and, the record shows, third-rate productivity at best; they were a real drag on the UK economy. There were several attempts to impose economic and financial frameworks to solve this problem, but they failed. The one thing that did eventually work was privatisation, which unlocked considerable efficiency gains, and I am especially proud of what we achieved in the 1980s and 1990s. Now, the Government are heading in the other direction with little apparent regard for efficiency. I was struck when the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, who is the Minister here today, introduced the Second Reading of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill two days ago and, in her opening speech, did not even mention productivity or efficiency. As the activities of the state increase, the greater will be the impact of low or negative efficiency on the whole economy, and the Government cannot afford to rest on hopes that it will all be different this time.

My other topic is the NHS. Because the NHS gobbles up about 40% of public expenditure, overall public sector productivity will be a problem if the NHS is not fixed. Measuring productivity in the NHS is very difficult, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has already said, but it seems generally agreed that the NHS has not even returned to pre-pandemic levels of productivity; it is treating fewer patients but has far higher staff numbers. Before the pandemic, the ONS measure, which includes a flattering quality adjustment, had the NHS as the best performing bit of the public sector, but not anymore. It is vital that the Government grasp this issue.

The last Government’s productivity plan for the NHS involved £4 billion being spent on technology transformation. The current Secretary of State has talked about creating a digital NHS. Another lesson from history is that all previous attempts at large scale technology-led transformation in the NHS have failed. There are lots of reasons for this, including the complexity of the NHS and insufficient management skills and capabilities.

More importantly, transformation will not happen unless the whole of the NHS buys in; it cannot be optional. The NHS has to want to change, not just in the upper echelons of NHS England, but in every GP surgery, every ward and every support service. If that does not happen, it is not worth investing a single pound in a grandiose transformation plan.

In my view, the NHS has to stop finding excuses for low productivity—lack of investment, burnout in the workforce, strikes and so on—and turn its attention to the basics of delivering world-class efficiency. I wish that I had confidence that this will happen.