National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Tuesday 3rd December 2024
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 330 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 189 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Mel Stride has been selected.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In her Budget statement on 30 October, the Chancellor set out the difficult decisions that we as a Government have been prepared to make on welfare, spending and tax. Those decisions were not just difficult but necessary, given the fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement that had become hallmarks of the previous Government. We inherited a mess, so those decisions were needed to fix the public finances, fund the NHS and other public services and deliver economic stability. We have been determined to take those decisions while protecting working people. That is why our Budget made no changes to income tax, the rate of VAT, or the amount of national insurance that working people pay. As a result of our Budget, people will not see a penny more tax on their payslips.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, with the best brains in the Treasury on hand, he does not understand that it is a moot point whether someone has a higher national insurance contribution in their payslip, or whether their wages are suppressed and the job that they were going for is not there anymore, because the employer cannot afford to increase their payroll due to this national insurance increase?
James Murray
We recognise that we are asking businesses to contribute more, and that this will have impacts, but it will be up to individual businesses to decide how to respond to these changes. The one thing that we know for certain is that if we had chosen a different path—if we had followed the previous Government and increased income tax or national insurance—that would have led to a tax on people’s payslips. It would have led to the amount of money in people’s pockets going down, which would have broken our manifesto promise.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
I apologise for intervening so early in the debate, but a number of my small businesses, charities and voluntary sector organisations have raised concerns and asked for clarity. Can the Minister outline what safety nets and other measures for support are available to small businesses, charities and voluntary sector organisations?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will get to the detail of the Bill in a moment, but I can briefly reassure him that the Bill doubles the employment allowance, which will go from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that small businesses and charities are protected; they can employ up to four people on the national living wage without paying a penny in national insurance. In the context of the tough decisions that we had to take in this Bill, that is important protection for small businesses and charities.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in the UK, the definition of a small business is one that employs fewer than 50 employees and has an annual turnover of less than £10 million? Thanks to his changes and political choices, thousands of small businesses across the country will face the decision of whether to keep staff on or lay them off.
James Murray
We know that the tough decision that we have had to take will have impacts—we have been up front with people about that—but we also know that over half of all employers will pay no more or less national insurance than they did before. We acknowledge that this decision will have an impact, but we believe that it is the right decision. I will explain why that is.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is clear that the Government are working hard to get this right, but may I press the Minister on the point about the employment allowance? What he says about doubling the threshold is welcome, particularly when it comes to childcare provision, and we all want an expansion of childcare places. He will be aware that the employment allowance doubling that he is talking about will apply to state-provided childcare places, but not to private and co-operative nurseries. Some 85% of places are in private and co-operative nurseries, so will he look at extending the employment allowance that he is giving to state nurseries to private and co-operative nurseries, so we can support the expansion of childcare?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but eligibility for the employment allowance is not changing. It is the same as it was before, and we are maintaining that provision. On protecting small businesses and charities, the crucial thing for us is the doubling of the employment allowance. In individual cases, I would recommend that organisations get the right advice, but the eligibility criteria for the employment allowance will not change as a result of the Bill.
Sammy Wilson
Is not the fact of the matter, despite what the Chancellor has said, that businesses have been abandoned? There is no safety net for them. To use the words of the Chancellor,
“What we have done with the increase in employer national insurance is leave it to the business to work out”.
Businesses are bearing the brunt of this, and it is really too bad. As far as the Chancellor is concerned, they will have to grin and bear it.
James Murray
I am sorry, but there are tough decisions that we have to take, and there are difficult decisions that businesses will have to take. The only people to have abandoned businesses were the Conservatives when they were in government. They abandoned any pretence of economic stability, fiscal responsibility, and supporting businesses to invest and grow. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I will make some progress, and take more interventions shortly. For me, keeping the promises on income tax, employee national insurance and VAT is crucial, but making those decisions and needing to get our country back on track has meant that other tough decisions in the tax system have been necessary. That is why, at the Budget, we took the decision to increase national insurance contributions from employers, while, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), increasing protections for small businesses and charities. It is those measures that the Bill seeks to introduce.
I will set out the detail of how the Bill seeks to achieve that. First, it increases the main rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%. It decreases the secondary threshold for employers—the threshold above which employers begin to pay employer national insurance contributions on their employees’ salary—from £9,100 to £5,000. At the same time, as I have mentioned to hon. Members, the Bill increases the protection for small businesses by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That increase in the employment allowance, alongside the removal of the £100,000 eligibility threshold, means that all eligible businesses will be able to employ four full-time workers on the national living wage without paying any national insurance contributions.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Is the Minister aware of the complete disaster this will cause for Scottish hospitality businesses? We do not have business rates relief, as businesses do in England Wales. We have a very large number of young people in the hospitality sector. For example, for someone working part-time for 25 hours a week on the minimum wage, their salary is £15,912, and the national insurance has just gone up by 74%. This is wiping out the hospitality industry in Scotland.
James Murray
I recognise that the decision we are taking will have impacts, and in some cases it will mean that employers have to take difficult decisions. We are, however, reforming business rates to help retail, hospitality and leisure on the high street, so I would suggest that the hon. Member speaks to the Scottish Government about their doing something to support businesses in the same way; I cannot speak on their behalf.
Taken together, the measures, should the Bill pass, will mean that 865,000 employers pay no national insurance at all next year, with over 1 million—more than a half of all employers—paying the same or less than they did previously. I have been clear, however, that I recognise that there will be impacts on some employers as a result of the changes. While many small businesses and charities will be protected through the employment allowance increase, others will have to contribute more.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister talks about protecting businesses or charities, but hospices, for example, employ many more than four people. I cannot think of one hospice that does not employ more than four people. How will they be protected?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That will depend on the exact set-up of the hospice, but typically hospices are independent charities, so they will be able to use the employment allowance against their national insurance contributions liability. They will also be able to access the other tax reliefs in the system that benefit charities, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief, which we have maintained in the Budget. We have taken the decision to maintain—
James Murray
Members will have to wait a second so that I can answer this question.
We will maintain the charitable reliefs in the system, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief. However, it is important to recognise that the decisions we have taken overall mean that over half of all employers will not pay any more or will pay the same national insurance as they did before. Their national insurance bill will be the same or less than it would have been otherwise.
Clive Lewis
Many of us in this House appreciate the work that my hon. Friend’s team are doing to unpick the mess we inherited, but one thing that has been pointed out is the need for better targeting. I have been talking to social enterprises and small businesses in my constituency. Social enterprises often do things that charities may do, but are considered as small businesses, although they do not get the same tax reliefs as charities. They also provide critical services in my constituency and in constituencies around the country. Is there not a better way to target micro-businesses and social enterprises to enable them to better manage what is quite a tough Budget for some of them?
James Murray
We recognise that tough decisions had to be taken throughout this Budget, but that is exactly why we have balanced the difficult decisions on the rate of national insurance and the decrease in the secondary threshold with the increase of the employment allowance, which helps small businesses and charities. There is no way that we can get through the measures announced in the Budget, and say that there will not be any difficult decisions for organisations or businesses to have to take. We are being up front about this. It is a tough decision for the Government to have to take, and it will mean that businesses must take difficult decisions as well. However, it is essential that we do this to fix the public finances, get our public services back on their feet and restore the economic stability that was squandered by the Conservative party.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
How does it help morale and positivity among small businesses, which will be vital to economic growth, if some of them are going to see their salary bills double? An employer in my constituency—not quite a small business, but a medium-sized business—is facing crippling increases in the salary bill. How will it help growth if those companies go to the wall and we lose jobs?
James Murray
The hon. Member focuses on the national insurance contributions changes, which is rightly the focus of this Bill, but I urge her to look at that in the context of everything else the Government are doing, not least the employment allowance doubling that I have mentioned. There is also our decision to freeze the small business rates multiplier as it applies in England, our decision to introduce permanently lower retail hospitality and leisure rates for businesses on the high street in 2026-27, and the decision in our corporation tax road map to maintain the small profits rate and other allowances from which small businesses can benefit. I urge her to understand that what we are doing on national insurance is taking a tough decision to fix the public finances, while at the same time providing the stability that businesses need to invest and grow, and that is the way to move our country forward.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that many people who want to work have struggled to do so because of poor health? They are unable to get access to a doctor, a hospital appointment or a dentist appointment—to a whole range of appointments—and as a consequence they have been forced out of work when they want to be in work, earn a living and get dignity from work. With the changes that the Government are bringing forward, we will see investment in our NHS and our public services that will help people to get the appointments they need to return to work. Does he agree that this investment is much needed and a good thing for our economy?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right. He points out why we are taking these difficult decisions, and why it is so important to fund public services and fix the public finances. Healthy businesses need a healthy NHS, healthy businesses need a healthy workforce and healthy businesses need public services to be functioning so that they can maintain their investment and grow the economy. I am sure that my hon. Friend, and other Members, will have seen the Government’s “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which sets out the barriers that ill health puts in the way of people being economically active. We are determined to challenge that and to help people who are able to get back into, and stay in, work. That will be a mission of this Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I will make a bit of progress; I have been generous in giving way.
The choice that we have taken is difficult; it is not one that we have taken lightly. As I have fully acknowledged in the Chamber, the impacts of this measure will be felt beyond businesses, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has acknowledged. Let me put the decision in context and say what we could have done instead. We could have reversed the previous Government’s cuts to employee national insurance. Those cuts were simply not honest because they were based on a forecast that the OBR said would have been “materially different” if the true extent of the last Government’s cover-up had been known. We made a commitment to not increase the taxes that working people pay, and we have delivered on that promise and made a different choice.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The manifesto said that Labour would not increase rates of national insurance contributions. The Minister is perfectly entitled to use the argument, “We never realised that it was this bad, so we have had to change what we said we would do”, but to pretend that Labour has not resiled on its manifesto promise is pure sophistry.
James Murray
In fact, it is both things: it is true that we have kept to our manifesto pledge of protecting working people by not increasing income tax, the national insurance that working people pay or VAT; at the same time, the situation is far worse than we thought it would be when we won the general election, with the £22 billion black hole and the fact that the OBR said that its forecast would have been “materially different” in March, had it known the true extent of the previous Government’s cover-up. Those are facts that the OBR put out there and from which we cannot hide.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I believe the Minister is misleading the House—[Interruption.] Inadvertently. The OBR did not say the words “cover-up” so will he correct the record?
James Murray
I said that the OBR said that its forecast would have been “materially different” had it known what the previous Government did not share with it at the time of its March forecast. I have been absolutely clear, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the OBR forecast as it might be illuminating—
James Murray
No, I will not give way again. It might be illuminating for him to read the OBR forecast and understand what it says about the previous Government’s relationship with it, how much information was not shared, and how that impacted on its forecast going into the election.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I will make some progress as I want to explain why we are taking this tough decision, and why it is so important that we take this decision now, as set out by the Chancellor in the Budget. Revenue raised by measures in the Bill will play a critical role in enabling the Government to fix the public finances, restore economic stability in a fiscally responsible way, and get the NHS back on its feet.
James Murray
I will make some progress.
We know how crucial economic stability is for businesses taking investment decisions, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), we know how crucial it is for businesses to have a healthy NHS. As a result of measures in the Bill, as well as wider measures announced in the Budget, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion increase in resource spending to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. That is urgently needed to get the NHS back on its feet. The increase in funding will be done within our tough fiscal rules—new rules that will bring an end to borrowing for day-to-day spending, something that the previous Government never achieved or even aimed for.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman refers to the NHS, and I believe the NHS and hospital trusts will receive an exemption to the increase in national insurance contributions. Given his clear passion for the NHS, will he look again at the impact that his rise in national insurance contributions will have on air ambulances? Under the current proposals air ambulances, like hospices, will face a huge increase in their costs.
James Murray
The way that we are approaching the reimbursement of employer national insurance costs for Departments and public sector employees is similar to what the previous Government did with the health and social care levy. It means that money goes to Departments, local governments, and public sector employees directly to help compensate for the increase in employer national insurance. For other people who are paying employer national insurance, if they have a contract with the public sector they are treated as contractors or private organisations. If they have concerns about their cost base they should talk to their sponsoring Department, the NHS, or whoever they have a contract with, so that those considerations can be taken into account in the round. It was the same for adult social care, and it is the same for other organisations that are funded through the public sector.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Let me pick up on the point about local authorities and public services. I pressed the Minister on that this morning during Treasury questions, and I fear he did not give me a clear answer. Richmond council, my local authority, delivers children’s services through an arm’s length body called Achieving for Children. As a result of these measures, with all the employees who deliver services for vulnerable children in Richmond upon Thames, it faces a bill of £588,000 in employer’s national insurance. Will the Minister assure local authorities up and down the country that operate similar models for delivering services that these arm’s length bodies will be exempt from the national insurance rise? Otherwise he will be damaging the very public services that he claims to be investing in today.
James Murray
We are protecting public services by providing relief directly to Departments and other public sector employers. Third parties, private organisations, or those who have a contract with the public sector are dealt with differently and they should approach their local council, or whoever is sponsoring them, to talk about their funding arrangements. I might draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that local government financing is increasing by 3.2% next year as a result of decisions that this Government have taken. I expect she would probably support that increase in funding, but sadly she does not have the guts to support what we need to do to raise the money in the first place.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
On the £22.6 billion for the NHS, or the figure just mentioned for local government, have the Minister or his officials calculated what the numbers would be, net of the national insurance cost? Those bodies— the national health service and local government—carry on with exactly the same services as before, but now face extra bills for national insurance contributions. Have they done the maths?
James Murray
In the statistics put out by the Government at the time of the Budget, a specific amount is earmarked directly for Departments and public sector employers. That amount is effectively netted off against the amount that will be available for net spending in public services. For other organisations, such as third parties that contract with the NHS, there should be a conversation between the person under the contract and the contracting organisation to consider pressures in the round. As I said, this is in the context of, for example, the local government budget going up by 3.2% next year, and a huge amount of extra investment in the NHS, with £600 million going to local authorities in England to help deal with social care pressures. That is the context of the decisions that we had to take and pressures in the round.
Christine Jardine
I thank the Minister for giving way again. What about GP surgeries?
James Murray
GP funding for 2025-26 will be confirmed by the Department for Health and Social Care in the usual way as part of the GP contracting process, and it will consider all the pressures on GPs in the round.
I will make some progress, because the points we have made are clear. It is important for me to look also at what the Opposition might do, given the important vote today on these tax changes, which are necessary to raise funding for the NHS and other public services. I would like to think that the Opposition might join us today, back our plans to provide extra funding for the NHS and support this Bill to help pay for it. It seems though, from an article in The Sunday Times in the name of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), that that may not be the case. In that piece, he wrote that the Conservatives apparently
“want to provide further funding for the NHS.”
Sadly, they refuse to take the tough decisions to pay for it.
I note that in that article, the shadow Chancellor rehashed the discredited pledge from the recent Conservative manifesto to make £12 billion of welfare savings, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies politely described at the time as being “difficult in the extreme.” Perhaps he missed the admission from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), during the election campaign that those welfare cuts were in fact not new, and the money had already been spent. Either way, it is hard to fathom why the new shadow Chancellor would rest his first intervention on a pledge from a manifesto that led to his party losing nearly 250 seats. It only serves to underscore the fact that the Conservatives are getting further and further away from being a credible Opposition by the day.
We recognise that the decision to increase employer’s national insurance will have impacts. Although measures in this Bill will help to protect small businesses and charities, other measures mean that larger businesses and organisations will have difficult decisions to take. Let me be clear, however: the Budget was a one-off and a once-in-a-generation event. The difficult decisions we took meant that we were able to wipe the slate clean of the previous Government’s fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement. Public services now need to live within their means and the means we have set them for the rest of this Parliament. The Budget delivered stability and fiscal responsibility, meaning that our focus can now be resolutely on boosting investment and growing the economy. That fiscal responsibility is possible only when we take tough decisions. This Bill makes it clear that this Government will not shy away from tough decisions and that we will do what is right in the circumstances we face. I commend it to the House.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill because it breaks the manifesto commitment of the Labour Party not to increase National Insurance; and will lead to lower growth, lower wages for working people, fewer jobs and the closure of businesses.
Today we turn to the latest chapter in this Government’s book of economic incompetence, which is their choice to increase employers’ national insurance contributions—Labour’s job tax on workers across the UK. Today’s measures are the major reason that the public’s immediate reaction to the Budget was negative, with YouGov polling the day after the Budget showing that nearly twice as many people thought it would leave the UK worse off than thought it would be better off. When it came to judging each of the many measures in the Budget in turn, today’s proposal to increase national insurance was rated the second worst decision of all in the Budget, just behind hiking bus fares by 50%. Back in October, 47% of the public thought Labour’s job tax was the wrong thing to do, but as employers have spelled out the impact of Labour’s job tax, the public’s view has soured further. In polling last Monday, those saying that this measure is wrong have increased from 47% to 57%. The public know that the Labour Chancellor has got this choice wrong.
Dr Luke Evans
The shadow Minister is an astute man, and he has picked up on some of the indices of concern. One of those is the economic confidence index, which in October was -52. In November, it was -65. That is the second lowest figure on record since the pandemic in 2020. If we had an eminent economist running the Treasury, they would be able to see that this is a bad idea for businesses and the country.
Richard Fuller
Obviously it would be useful to have people with business experience in the Cabinet, if they are going to levy taxes on business. Sadly, the Government do not have that. My hon. Friend’s point about business confidence and the reaction from businesses goes to what the Minister was trying to say in his summing up about what the Conservative party would do. The way we raise more taxes is by enhancing business confidence, so that they invest, grow and make profits that can be taxed. This Budget has done precisely the opposite. Each and every day since the Budget, confidence in the financial competence of this Labour Government has been ebbing away. Less than one in four of the public now believe that this Government are handling the economy well.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman appears keen on polling. Can he talk us through the polling for Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s Budget?
Richard Fuller
To be fair, my former colleague did not last quite as long as the lettuce, and the public made their judgment clear on that and many other issues at the general election. The hon. Gentleman’s point is fair, but it is not particularly relevant to the decisions he will be asked to vote on today. Hospices in his constituency will know how he votes. GPs in his constituency will know how he votes. Charities in his constituency will know how he votes. I will be interested to see whether he votes with his conscience or with the party line.
Less than one in four of the public now believe that the Government are handling the economy well. It is not just the public who have lost faith in the economic competence of His Majesty’s Treasury; it is the Prime Minister himself, who apparently on Thursday will ditch the ambition for the United Kingdom to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7, removing at a stroke one of the key planks of Labour’s economic plans. The Bill will add to that lack of faith in this Labour Government, because this measure to raise national insurance contributions directly contradicts Labour’s election promise not to increase taxes on working people.
In the election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the entire Labour Treasury team, including the Minister, repeated the phrase from their manifesto, which stated:
“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.”
Yet today, with the election behind them, increasing taxes on working people is exactly what Labour is proposing to do.
The shadow Minister is shaking his head.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
You’re the shadow Minister.
Richard Fuller
I am terribly sorry—the Minister. He shakes his head and says that it is not true. Let me turn to one of his favourite independent economic groups, the Resolution Foundation, whose analyst James Smith said, “Even if it”—the employers national insurance change—
“doesn’t show up in pay packets from day one, it will eventually feed through to lower wages…This is definitely is a tax on working people, let’s be very clear about that.”
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a little wearisome to listen to the Opposition talk about taxes on working people. We have the highest income taxes since world war two because they did not increase the thresholds, and in 2011 VAT went up to 20%, which was a massive tax on working people. I would like to hear what the shadow Minister has to say about that.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Conservative record. Shall I talk to him about our record on national insurance? In 2010, when Labour was last in office, it broke the economy and left a note saying that there was no money left. We did have to increase national insurance rates—but not by as much as is proposed today. Thereafter, we increased national insurance thresholds with inflation; these proposals do not do that. We introduced the employment allowance, which admittedly the Government are increasing. We then introduced national insurance reliefs for young workers. We increased national insurance income thresholds in 2022, 2023 and 2024. That is the Conservative record. We do not believe in the jobs tax: we do not think it helps growth, and we do not think that it will increase taxation.
Richard Fuller
I will make a bit more progress and then give way to my right hon. Friend.
If the Minister does not like the Resolution Foundation’s judgment on this tax, he should just listen to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:
“Simple economic theory suggests that the incidence of employer NICs and employee NICs should be the same, at least in the long run. It is likely that the long-run incidence of both employer and employee NICs is predominantly on employees”.
The measures in the Bill represent by far the largest part of the tax grab in the October Budget. The Treasury Red Book assesses that these measures will raise £23.7 billion in the next financial year, rising to £25.7 billion, but the Minister knows that behavioural changes means that they will actually raise substantially less; the IFS estimates about £16 billion.
I note that in the Red Book there were three opportunities for this jobs tax to be referred to as “Delivering on our Promises”. There is:
“Delivering on our Promises—New Policy to Close the Tax Gap”,
“Delivering on our Promises—Collecting Tax That is Due”
and even the catch-all:
“Delivering on our Promises—Other Manifesto Tax Commitments”,
but the increase in national insurance contributions cannot be included in any of those, because Labour politicians hid their intentions from the British voters at the election.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman refers to the history of the Tory party on national insurance. Can he tell us why he and his party voted for the health and social care levy, which put up national insurance for employees not so long ago?
Richard Fuller
That is a very odd question when the Minister himself has said that the objective today is to provide more money for the health service. I guess I will think about what the hon. Gentleman has asked.
Richard Fuller
I will be very happy to give way, but I will make some progress first.
If we take the Government at their word that their intention is to raise funds for public services, this measure is an inefficient way to do so. Under the provisions of the 1992 Acts on social security provision, only a proportion of the moneys raised by this form of taxation will be allocated to public services; the vast majority is essentially hypothecated to the national insurance fund. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the moneys raised by the Bill will actually be allocated to the national health service? Will he also advise us of why the Chancellor chose this particular tax, which, uniquely, will burden the economy with far more in taxes levied than will actually end up going to support public services?
Employers large and small across the United Kingdom have been pleading with the Government to reverse this measure, letting them know about the impact it will have on jobs and on wages; the particularly harsh impact it will have on female workers and on young people starting out in their careers; the vulnerability of our hard-pressed hospitality businesses and high street retailers; or the pre-Christmas pleas of our charities, hospices and GPs about the way their contribution to public services has been completely ignored. Has the Minister been listening to the voices of people who actually have experience of running a business, creating jobs or delivering public services, who are telling him about the negative impact the Bill will have on jobs and pay, and even on their own viability, or has he been turning a deaf ear?
Dr Luke Evans
Is it not the biggest slap in the face for people listening to this that when Labour uses “working people”, it cannot define that term? Pub landlords and people working in charities are by definition working people—they are of working age and earn a living—and they will now be hit by this tax, which will have such a detrimental impact on their livelihoods. Is that not a disgrace?
Richard Fuller
I have been listening to questions from Members who believe that this is “not a tax on working people” asking for exemptions from it. When we hear that these taxes are being levied on hospices, charities, GPs and small businesses, we cannot help but believe that Labour thinks that people work only when they work for the Government. The truth of the matter is that working people work in many institutions across the country—in small businesses, large businesses and in the third sector—as well as for the Government. This Government are taxing working people.
Clive Lewis
I think sometimes, listening to the Opposition, it is as if that money goes into a complete black hole. Those billions are not just going to go into public services like health, education and social housing; we are also putting that money into people’s pockets—into the pockets of nurses, doctors, engineers and builders—who will then spend their money in those businesses. It is called the multiplier effect. That money will go back into our economy, rebuild our public services, which the Conservatives destroyed, and go into the pockets of people through the economy. What’s not to like?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman asks, “What’s not to like?”, but just a few minutes ago he was saying what he did not like in the Bill. He said he wanted exemptions that the Minister was not prepared to give him; I think his dispute is not with me, but with his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
The British Retail Consortium—another section of the economy—wrote to the Chancellor detailing the costs of the measures to retailers: £0.57 billion from the rate increase and £1.76 billion for the reduction in the national insurance contributions threshold. It spelled out the consequences:
“For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timetable. The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level. This will impact high streets and customers right across the country.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I would just like the hon. Gentleman to apologise for the fact that all the things he has just outlined are the impact of his Government’s kamikaze Budget in 2022.
Richard Fuller
Since the hon. Lady is reviewing history, she should look at the Bank of England review by Bernanke, commissioned under the last Government, which looked at the impact on interest rates in the UK compared with other countries and included that period. She will see that the real impact of those changes on interest rates was no different from any other year. The UK stayed in exactly the same place every year. There is a difference between facts and reality and what the Labour party thinks is history.
Richard Fuller
No, I am drawing my speech to a close, because plenty of people wish to speak.
UKHospitality is also concerned. It estimates that our pubs, clubs, hotels and restaurants will have to stump up £1 billion more because of the Bill. It points out that for a typical staff member aged 21 or over earning the national living wage and working 38 hours a week, the jobs tax will increase by 53.9%, from £1,863 to £2,869. Does the Minister honestly think that that will not mean job cuts in the hospitality sector?
The Government claim to have shielded the public sector from the jobs tax, but the reality is murkier. Many of our GPs will have to stump up more money, and our hospices and charities will have to find more money. As we approach the Christmas season, will the Minister give some hope to our charities, voluntary groups, GPs and hospices, and say that they, too, will be exempt from Labour’s jobs tax?
The Labour party in government is stumbling badly. I know from my own experience that no amount of resets will inspire confidence, and certainly not when a Prime Minister is forced into a reset within five months of taking office. The Labour party in government is also getting a reputation for a series of cruel policies motivated by socialism based on hate. The removal of winter fuel payments for the elderly was cruel. The family farm tax, penalising British farmers who have toiled in our fields for generations, was cruel. Today’s jobs tax, attacking businesses, charities, GPs, hospices and employment opportunities and growth is cruel, too. I urge all Members of this House to support our amendment.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
For too long, this country has suffered from irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal management from Conservatives, saddling working people with the bill for their broken promises, incompetence and chaotic approach to governing. They hiked taxes for working people to record rates and left behind a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Then, to add insult to injury, the Conservatives spend their first few months in opposition washing their hands of 14 years of failure in power. That changed on 30 October when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a historic Budget, which led to this Bill. The Budget delivers the swift action needed to repair the immediate fiscal crisis and a long-term plan to repair our public finances, while also laying the foundations for a decade of national renewal.
We heard a lot from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and no doubt we will hear much from Opposition Members, about the Bill. But really, the gist of their argument is that they want all the benefits of the Budget, but have no idea how to pay for it. Boris Johnson may no longer be the leader of the Conservative party, but his belief in cakeism lives on. On cake, they are pro having it and pro eating it.
The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) attempted at first to wean the party off its cakeism addiction. Running in the first leadership context, he told his party not to believe in
“comforting fairytales that might make us feel better in the moment, but will leave our children worse off tomorrow”.
But under his leadership, the Conservatives once again succumbed to the fairytale of cakeism. That is why they lost the general election. The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire spoke of polls, but he will remember that they lost an election just a few months ago because they could no longer handle the challenges of the world as it is. They ducked the hard choices and, in opposition, they continue to duck them and to drift away from reality.
Back in the real world, let me remind the House what this Government are delivering, funded in large part by the Bill. They are delivering £25.6 billion in increased NHS funding, ensuring that our health service can meet rising demand and creating 40,000 more elective appointments every week. They are delivering more teachers, and investing £1 billion in special educational needs provision. They are investing billions in surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners. There is a further £1.5 billion to rebuild crumbling schools and ensure that every child learns in a safe environment. Those are investments that Conservative Members must surely support.
Mr Angus MacDonald
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the impact of this measure is hitting the most vulnerable businesses and the most vulnerable charities throughout the United Kingdom? Surely a much better way of raising the money—which I can understand is needed—would be to raise corporation tax, or to increase taxes on, for instance, social media or the very largest companies.
Luke Murphy
The Bill, and the Budget, protect the smallest businesses, as the Minister has already explained. It is disappointing to hear the hon. Member sharing the Conservative party’s cakeism. Opposition Members must surely support the investments that the Bill will deliver, but if they oppose the Bill, how do they propose to fund them? Turning up at the supermarket with a long shopping list but no means to pay does not work in real life, and it does not work in government either.
The Conservatives have clearly learnt nothing from their kamikaze mini-Budget of 2022. Perhaps they believe that cakeism has just not been tried properly. This Government, by contrast, have taken the tough but fair decisions to protect working people, invest in our NHS and rebuild our public services. For too long the burden of tax has fallen on working people, but under this Government, larger businesses and the richest will pay a little more in tax to help fund the NHS and other public services on which working people rely. Where the Conservatives would either cut public services or pick the pockets of working people, this Government are asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more to help repair our broken public services—broken over the last 14 years. This Bill will help to deliver on the priorities of my constituents in Basingstoke, who will be able to see a doctor when they need one, and schools will be able to deliver the best—
Pippa Heylings
Will the hon. Member reassure the GPs in my constituency, in Harston, Comberton, the Eversdens, Melbourn and Queen Edith’s, who have sought reassurances that the Government do not intend to threaten the viability of thousands of NHS general practices through these charges?
Luke Murphy
I am not sure that it is for me to give reassurances—it is probably for Ministers to do that—but what I can do is repeat what the Minister said earlier: the Government will bring forward the settlement for GPs in the usual way.
Dr Luke Evans
Part of the biggest problem that I have with the way this is being done, looking at the NHS as a whole, is that while at the front door of primary care the raising of national insurance contributions means that GPs do not want to recruit, at the back door social care is also being hit by the increase. It is all very well protecting the centre—the hospitals—but the biggest problem is system-wide, in that both the back door and the front door are jammed shut. How will the Bill resolve that? This is the practicality that the Labour party must explain to the health services, because they are asking the same question and it is going unanswered.
Luke Murphy
Both the back door and the front door of the NHS have been broken over the last 14 years, so we will take no lectures from the Conservatives about the state of the NHS or the impact of policies.
The protection of small business is also built into the Bill. The increase in the employment allowance to £10,500—as the Minister said—and the expansion to all employers mean that 250,000 employers will pay less national insurance, and that 820,000 employers will see no difference in their national insurance bills. That will ensure that these changes fall only on the businesses with the broadest shoulders. This Government continue to champion entrepreneurship and wealth creation, boosting public investment by more than £100 billion over this Parliament.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituency has a higher proportion of business owners, entrepreneurs, and high-growth enterprises and start-ups than many others. One of them wrote to me this week to say that they will cut their operations, and that the Budget has crashed any incentive or possibility for businesses to grow. Does the hon. Member agree that this Bill does not protect businesses or the workers they employ, and does not leave any hope for economic growth?
Luke Murphy
I take it that the hon. Lady must oppose the large investment in public services that the Government are proposing, and that she opposes the Government’s industrial strategy, which is one of the ways we will grow the economy. I remind Opposition Members that workers in small and large businesses depend on the NHS. As others have already said, many workers have continued to be out of work, which has a massive impact on our productivity. We should make no apologies for investing in our public services.
Munira Wilson
The hon. Gentleman keeps accusing those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches of not supporting public sector investment. We have championed it, and we have said that the big multinationals—the big banks and the social media giants—should bear the brunt. Just yesterday, at the Small Business 100 reception here in Parliament, the owners of Shambles, a popular family-run restaurant in Teddington, told me that the impact of the Budget on them next year will cost £50,000 to £60,000. What are they doing? They are freezing all recruitment for the next few months. How will that deliver the growth that the Labour party is apparently desperate to achieve?
Luke Murphy
As I have already said, we are protecting small businesses through this Bill and we have an industrial strategy. We are delivering record levels of public investment in the economy, and I doubt very much that the measures that the hon. Lady set out would deliver the kind of funding that this Bill will deliver. We need serious investment to fix the mess left by the previous Government.
We are providing businesses with certainty through a corporate tax road map, as others have said, and upholding our commitment to maintain corporation tax at the lowest rate in the G7. I am proud to support the investment in our country, in our NHS, in education and in rebuilding the infrastructure on which hard-working people across our country rely. We are bringing the funding needed to kick-start a decade of national renewal. While the Conservatives sit back to have their cake and eat it, this Government have acted decisively to invest strategically and build for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will be able to see that a significant number of people wish to contribute to this debate. A time limit of six minutes will be imposed after we hear from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
This Saturday is Small Business Saturday. It is an opportunity for every single one of us to celebrate the fantastic small businesses in our constituencies—businesses that are the engine of our economy and the backbone of our communities.
We know that behind every single business there is a story. Either it is a family business that has passed through the generations and evolved, or it is a start-up that was somebody’s life’s dream, but behind every story there is blood, sweat, tears and hard work. This Saturday, as we all go around our constituencies meeting and greeting small business owners, we only need to scratch the surface of even the most successful business to know that they are very worried about the impact of the Budget, particularly the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions. We have heard from many of them already, and we know what the impact will be: they will suppress wages, freeze recruitment and, in the worst cases, shut up shop.
Rightly, the Government keep talking about growth. We all want economic growth, but this particular tax will undermine growth, not unleash it. We have all heard from GPs, dentists, hospices, social care providers, charities that are commissioned to provide health and care, and public health programmes. They are all incredibly worried. None of them has been given a guarantee that the money being taken away with one hand through the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions will be given back through the renewed contracts with the NHS. We oppose this tax, but if the Government will not reverse it, we urge them at the very least to exempt health and care providers.
Dr Evans
We have heard a number of times from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and even from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury today, that allocations will be made in the usual way, but we are six weeks on from the Budget and health services are trying to decide what to do now. They cannot wait.
Daisy Cooper
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that GP services, dentists and hospices are having to make decisions now on freezing recruitment and not providing wage increases, so there is real urgency to this measure.
The changes go beyond health and care. They will also affect early years providers and education providers, at a time when we should be reducing the costs of childcare and care services and supporting parents back into work. The measure will undermine that. I have heard from housing associations, Citizens Advice and hospitality companies that the pressure from this measure will make life incredibly difficult for them. Hospitality in particular relies on a lot of part-time workers, and the changes to national insurance contributions will have a terrible effect. Many of them tell me that at the moment—before the changes have taken effect—employer national insurance contributions liability is incurred only once a part-time worker starts earning £9,100 per annum. That is 15 hours a week on the current national minimum wage. Once the changes take effect, however, liability will be incurred at only £5,000 per annum, or the equivalent of 7.5 hours a week on the new national minimum wage. That will disincentivise small businesses from taking on part-time workers. Let us be honest: many people can only work part time because they are picking up the pieces of a broken health and social care system.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Someone coming back from a mental health crisis who manages to get one day’s work a week—that may initially be all that they can manage—will, under this so-called Government of workers, find themselves hit by the measure and so will be less likely to be employed. Also, most of the cost of the measure will come out of their wages.
Daisy Cooper
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. Many people work part time, for all sorts of reasons. They could be coming back from a period of poor mental health. They could be returning to work after bringing up their children. They could have a fluctuating health condition, be recovering from surgery or, as I was saying, be picking up the pieces of a broken social care system, having become a family carer. We all know these people. They live among us. They are our friends, our neighbours and our family members. Many people need to work part time in order to contribute to the economy and be productive, and it is also good for their self-esteem.
A number of Labour Members have rightly challenged the Conservatives on how they would pay for this investment in the NHS, and they are right to do so, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies gave a damning account of the Conservatives’ manifesto. It said that it contained
“giveaways paid for by uncertain, unspecific and apparently victimless savings.”
Also, the Conservatives could not say where the £20 billion-worth of cuts could come from, so Labour Members are right to point to the fact that the Conservatives have not answered that question. We should hold their feet to the fire on that point, because we heard time and again in the run-up to 4 July that everything was broken and that the Conservatives had driven our economy into the ground and left our public services on their knees.
By contrast, we Liberal Democrats have set out how we would fund many of these services. The Labour party says that its measures will amount to £28 billion for investment in health and social care, or at least in the NHS, but the Office for Budget Responsibility says that once the amount is adjusted for behaviour changes and public sector rebates, it comes to only £10 billion. We have suggested a number of measures and, in the spirit of constructive opposition, I urge Labour Members to look at them, if not for this Budget, then at least for the next.
If the Government had reversed the Conservatives’ tax cuts for the big banks, that would have raised £4 billion a year. If they had doubled the remote gambling duty, that would have raised up to £900 million a year. If they had trebled the digital services tax, that would have raised £2 billion a year. We have pointed to examples of ways that the Government could have raised funds from those with the broadest shoulders. In the spirit of constructive opposition, I urge Labour colleagues to look at those measures.
Luke Murphy
The hon. Lady has cited the IFS, which said of the Liberal Democrat manifesto that
“there are clear risks that their package of tax measures would not raise the £27 billion a year that they claim.”
The IFS also described some of the measures as “a bad idea economically.” Confronted with a Bill promising actual investment and delivering actual money, will the Liberal Democrats really oppose it?
Daisy Cooper
The fact remains that the IFS said that our proposals for capital gains tax, which would raise £5 billion, go in “a sensible direction”. I recognise that the IFS does not like our proposal for share buy-backs, but other think-tanks are available. Indeed, the Social Market Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research support our online gambling proposals. A broad range of think-tanks support a number of measures in our manifesto. As I said, in the spirit of constructive opposition, I urge Labour Members to look at those ideas.
I finish where I started. This Saturday is Small Business Saturday, and small businesses will shoulder a disproportionate burden from the increase to national insurance contributions. We urge the Government not to proceed with this measure, but if they do, they should, at the very least, exclude health and care providers, which are essential to getting health and care back on their feet.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this incredibly important debate. On 30 October, the Chancellor delivered a Budget that will rebuild the foundations of our broken economy through public investment paid for by tax revenues. We are proud that those revenues will be raised from both the largest businesses and the wealthiest individuals. Public investment will be paid for by those who can best afford it, to benefit us all and make our nation more prosperous.
We entered office with the worst economic inheritance since 1945, after years of under-investment—the lowest rate in the G7—years of failure, the worst fall in wages since Napoleon, and years of chaos. In 2022, we built fewer onshore wind farms in England than we had Conservative Prime Ministers.
The Conservatives left our nation far weaker than they found it—a nation where 3 million people are too sick to work because one in 10 nursing jobs is unfilled; a nation where one in three young people fails maths GCSE because around half of our schools do not have the maths teachers that they need; the nation with the highest energy bills and inflation, because we have the worst-insulated homes in western Europe. That is what we were elected to change.
As well as having a mandate to rebuild this nation, we were also elected to rebuild hope by creating a country that, once again, gets better rather than worse.
Graham Stuart
In the spirit of hoping for growth, the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I sent a survey to all the businesses in my constituency. Perhaps we are an outlier, but 95% of businesses in Beverley and Holderness said that they expect things to be worse as a result of the Budget. It might be different in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, especially if he stays at home.
Dr Sandher
I politely suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not set up a polling company, as that is not an effective sampling strategy. Deary me. Where do I start?
Anyway, we are insulating our homes and hiring more nurses and teachers—and yes, we will pay those nurses and teachers enough money to keep them, because that is what responsible Governments do. All that investment needs to be paid for. That is why we are raising national insurance contributions for the largest employers, with £3 out of every £4 raised coming from the largest 2% of businesses. That will raise some £23 billion of investment that every family and business will benefit from. Crucially, we are raising that money while protecting the smallest businesses.
Mr Angus MacDonald
The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the largest businesses, but the Government are completely wiping out small and medium-sized businesses across the whole hospitality and retail sector. This is a catastrophic piece of legislation. He talks about a kamikaze Budget; we are considering a kamikaze Budget right here, today.
Dr Sandher
Not only are we protecting the smallest businesses by raising the employment allowance, but there will be business rates relief for the hospitality businesses to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Christine Jardine
Does the hon. Gentleman understand how frustrating it is for Liberal Democrat Members to be told that this is the Scottish Government’s problem? It is not the Scottish Government’s problem; it is the problem of Scottish businesses if they are being hit by national insurance contribution increases without business rates relief. We are tired of hearing that this was a tough decision; it was an easy decision that is tough for businesses.
Dr Sandher
It is the responsible decision to invest in this country’s foundation, so that we get the doctors, nurses and teachers that we all need, and to insulate our homes.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration for getting more funding into the NHS. On Friday, in the debate in this House on supporting people at the end of life, hon. Members from across the Chamber highlighted the importance of getting more funding and support for palliative care, but Sue Ryder warns that financial pressures, such as the rise in national insurance contributions, could force closures of crucial hospices, which patients desperately need. Noting the wider case that the hon. Gentleman is making, would he join me in urging the Government to review and revisit the impact that the measure will have on health and care providers, and the wider voluntary sector?
Dr Sandher
The Government will set out exactly what the health and care budgets will be before next April, and the investment will go towards improving the health and care system that we and our loved ones rely on. All the money that is being invested in the health service, our teachers and elsewhere across the economy needs to be raised—and, yes, we are raising it from the largest employers.
By increasing the employment allowance, we are protecting the smallest businesses. Half of businesses will pay the same national insurance or less. A quarter of a million of the smallest businesses will see their national insurance tax bill fall. From tax revenue, we will invest in our people and our places to ensure that they can thrive, building on public investment in our infrastructure and our services.
Countries that grow the fastest are not simply those that tax the least. If all we needed to do to create prosperity was cut taxes to their lowest level, Somalia would be richer than Sweden. However, IKEA is not about to relocate to Mogadishu. The countries that grow the fastest are those that raise a return on investment. Returns are higher when businesses have the roads that they need to transport their goods, workers have the skills that they need to produce more, and all of us have cheaper electricity and well insulated homes. Those are the decisions that we have made, and were proud to make, in this Budget.
Across the Atlantic, in the United States, we have seen a multi-trillion dollar investment package, which helped to deliver the fastest growth in the G7. There were new roads, new factories and new clean energy projects from Wisconsin to Wyoming. That public investment led to the fastest post-pandemic recovery in the G7, whereas we had one of the weakest. That is why, here at home, we are investing to raise returns; investing in our schools, our NHS and home insulation to make us better educated and healthier and to get energy bills down for all and for good
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Opposition parties have spent an awful lot of time attacking various measures in the Budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they are going to do that, they need to point out which investment—money to our schools or to hospitals—they would not provide to alleviate their concerns?
Dr Sandher
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If Opposition parties wish to criticise the tax rise on the largest businesses and the wealthiest individuals, they must set out what services they will cut and who will not get a GP appointment or the teachers that are needed.
We are investing to raise returns. Investing in our schools, NHS and home insulation makes us better educated and healthier and gets energy bills down for all of us. That investment is paid for through tax revenue. The principle behind which we raise that is simple yet powerful: it is about collective contribution for collective benefit, sharing in the rebuilding of our nation and, of course, the rebuilding of hope.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I assure Members that we have now resolved the problem with the clock and that there is a six-minute time limit. I call Stuart Anderson.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak so high up on the list and to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I believe I will have different views from him in this jobs tax debate.
Manifesto commitments are very important. As politicians, we go out to the public and tell them what we are going to do. I heard time and again the phrase, “We will not raise taxes”, which Government Members will finish with “on working people”—I will come to the definition of “working people” shortly—so why are we now in a debate discussing national insurance contributions and how they will rise?
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. When the Chancellor looked at the figures and the OBR forecast, did she either not spend enough time on them, or did she not understand them? I am keen to understand that. Also, in the access talks, when Labour sat with the civil service, they were told about everything that was happening. At what stage did they then realise that the figures were completely different? They were not. Labour was able to see behind the scenes and the Chancellor had a full view, through which they could go to the British people and tell them they would not raise taxes—yet here we are today with a debate on raising taxes for working people.
I met a group of working people—I define them as working people—made up of almost every publican in Ludlow. They deal in hospitality at the highest level, given that Ludlow is the fine food capital of the UK; indeed, I invite Members to come and see that great quality. I sat with those members of the hospitality industry. Some had been in it for a few years and many for a decade or two. They knew the trade in South Shropshire and know hospitality exceptionally well, having worked year on year and created a great reputation. They are at the stage where their turnover is the same, their footfall is roughly the same, but they cannot see, as of next April, how they can make a profit. We can argue backwards and forwards about what we think. I am listening to my constituents, in a town, who almost unanimously agree that they cannot see a way forward when the Budget comes into play next year.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Under the last Conservative Government, 10 pubs closed every single week. Before the hon. Member talks about our record, will he apologise for the record of the last Conservative Government, which was incredibly damaging to businesses, particularly hospitality businesses, across the country?
Stuart Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am pretty sure the Chancellor has just said, “Hold my beer, I will make that 20 pubs a week.”
My constituents are really struggling with this Budget. They cannot see a way forward and are pleading with me to lobby the Government to say that this will not work for them. These are people who know what works for them inside out. They do not own massive businesses, but many of them employ more than four people. They may not have the broadest shoulders, but they have worked for many years to make things work. Businesses are struggling not just in Ludlow, but across my constituency. Small Business Saturday is coming up, and I am hearing business after business saying that they are finding it impossible to see a way forward next year.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The hon. Member is talking about small businesses. Last week, I was proud to host the Federation of Small Businesses in Parliament. Representatives welcomed the Budget, particularly the increase in the employment allowance, which will see the smallest businesses benefit. Some 250,000 of the smallest businesses say that they are better off now than they were before the Budget. Are they wrong?
Stuart Anderson
I am pretty sure that the Federation of Small Businesses has not welcomed the national insurance rise on small businesses. I am happy to look at that, but I am convinced that no small business is enjoying a rise in employers’ national insurance contribution rates.
Finally, I have a question for the Minister. Does she believe that the Chancellor will still be in her position when this Bill comes into play—if it is voted through tonight?
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary rightly said that this Bill was about tough decisions. The Conservative party used to be about taking tough decisions. We may not have liked them, but we respected them because we thought that they were doing things in a pragmatic and consistent way. Earlier this year—in my former life as a journalist—I interviewed the former Chancellor, Ken Clarke. He said this about tax:
“I didn’t have a fixation on taxation. Taxes sometimes have to go up. Taxes sometimes have to go down. It depends on the needs of the macroeconomy and the public need…And, yes, I raised taxes quite frequently and I cut some taxes…I made my mind up on what was necessary.”
Sadly, that Tory party is long gone, replaced by the libertarian ideological collaborators of chaos whom we see on the Opposition Benches. Worst of all, their sums simply do not add up, and, as a result, it has been left to Labour to clean up the mess they left behind.
The economic situation that we inherited in the summer was much worse than anyone anticipated, so much so that Richard Hughes of the Office for Budget Responsibility said that Treasury Ministers “failed their statutory duties”. He told the Treasury Committee that there was about
“£9.5 billion worth of net”—
spending—
“pressure…which they did not disclose to us…which under the law, and under the Act they should have done.”
That is what he said to the Treasury Committee. If the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) wishes to dispute his words, will he please get up and say so?
I remember that Liz Truss and her Cabinet, some of whom are now in the shadow Cabinet, were in favour of fracking. Well, her mini-Budget certainly fracked our economy. It was a high pressure injection of debt-fuelled tax cuts made in the hope of extracting hidden growth. Instead, it created an earthquake on the money markets and led to rocketing mortgage bills that many are still feeling the aftershocks of today.
One thing that struck me most about that “Kami-Kwasi” Budget—yes, I do claim copyright on that phrase—was that the alleged tax cutters on that day were actually increasing the tax burden for millions through fiscal drag. Yes, buried away in that growth plan was the continuation of the previous Government’s plans to freeze tax thresholds, and they all backed that massive increase in the tax burden. I am pleased to say that this Government will end that fiscal drag act in 2028, uprating personal thresholds in line with inflation once again.
The chaos did not end with the Truss-Kwarteng double act, who drove themselves and the economy off a cliff like the Tory “Thelma & Louise”. Sadly, even the normally sensible right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) put his own last desperate tax cuts before public services. His spending plans were incredible in that they lacked credibility.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would never dare to tread on your toes, but perhaps something is wrong with the electronic equipment because the screen says that this is a national insurance debate, rather than some generalised debate. I sympathise, though, with the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members for not wanting to talk about their own policies—they would rather slag us off.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that that was not really a point of order. I am sure the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) is getting to the point on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.
Paul Waugh
I am, indeed, coming to exactly that point, because this is set in the context of what the Tories left behind. The clear trajectory of their last Budget was to squeeze day-to-day public spending to just 1% above inflation every year until 2029. That carried dire implications for every unprotected Department—up to £20 billion of cuts a year. The Resolution Foundation calculated that that would be the equivalent of three quarters of the cuts of the austerity years—austerity 2.0.
Sadly, there is no evidence that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), left her own note for her successor. If she had, it surely would have read, “I’m afraid to tell you there is no money for public services.” If the Conservatives had won the last election, what would that have meant in practice? My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary revealed that when he took office, he was told that the NHS was facing such large deficits it would have to cut 20,000 appointments and operations a week. Thanks in part to the national insurance rises in the Bill, he can now deliver on our manifesto commitment to provide 40,000 extra appointments every week, with our investment in mental health services treating an extra 380,000 patients.
Dr Luke Evans
Is the hon. Member aware that the Royal College of General Practitioners said that it will cost 2.2 million appointments just to service the NIC payments that must be made? How does that resolve our service provision in primary care?
Paul Waugh
The Heath Secretary said that he will address that in due course, and I am sure that he will before April, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) may want to answer the question I put to the Conservative Front Bench. If they are so opposed in principle to national insurance rises, why did they support the health and social care levy in 2021? The hon. Member voted for it, as did the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—why? They cannot tell me why because they know they are being inconsistent.
Dr Evans
Absolutely. Does the hon. Member realise that we had to deal with that because the amount that we had to borrow in 2010 was £158 billion? For the pandemic, it was £400 billion. That is the kind of thing that the Conservatives have had to deal with that led to the difficult decisions. We were on track to have the fastest growing economy, which has now been trashed by decisions taken by Labour.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is the second time the hon. Gentleman has done it: I have left nothing.
Paul Waugh
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour is the party taking tough decisions today and refusing to duck the issues that the Conservatives were so timid to grasp, from planning reform to energy security, from welfare reform to removing tax breaks for the richest.
In the past four weeks, the Conservatives have made £6.7 billion of commitments to cut taxes, but they have not said which public services they would cut to fund them. But the most damning indictment of their low-pay, low-growth, low-investment, low-productivity economics was the model that totally failed. In 1964, the outgoing Tory Chancellor Reggie Maudling bumped into James Callaghan and said,
“Good luck, old cock. Sorry to leave it in such a mess.”
It is a shame that the current Tory party cannot earn up to their own failures with a similar sense of regret or humility.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I rise to relay some of the concerns that have been raised with me by constituents and businesses. They are concerned not only about the impact of the Bill’s proposals on small businesses in my constituency, but about the provision of public services there.
It has been interesting to listen to various opinions on this matter, but I will begin by pushing back on the implication made by some that the changes in the Bill will not have an impact on small businesses. The fact is that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that from 2026-27 onwards, 76% of the total cost of the increased employer national insurance contributions will be passed on through lower real wages. That tells us not only that there will be an impact on businesses, but that contrary to what has been suggested by some in the Chamber, there will be an impact on workers.
Much has been said about the impact on businesses, and I very much agree with those concerns, but I will concentrate my remarks on the impact on public services in Wales. It is worth noting that 30% of the Welsh workforce is employed in the public sector—a much higher proportion that the rest of the UK—so the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions equates to some £380 million. Clearly, the Bill will therefore have significant consequences for the provision of public services, and it remains unclear whether the additional Government support—or the reimbursement—will meet the increased cost.
Local authorities across Wales already face budget shortfalls of over half a billion pounds. At a time of significant budgetary pressure, Ceredigion county council—one of the county councils in my constituency—estimates that the increase in NICs will total over £4 million in one year alone. Communities deserve assurances that essential services will not be further jeopardised because funding gaps are exacerbated by the changes in the Bill. Can the Minister confirm that the full cost of the increased national insurance contributions will be reimbursed to local government in Wales? Furthermore, will that additional support be recurring? The last thing we want is for additional costs to be covered in years one, two and three, only for local government to face a funding cliff edge after that.
In addition to the direct cost to public authorities, for which the Government have suggested they will provide additional support, we should also bear in mind the other organisations—public and third sector organisations—that are integral to delivering many of the public services that we consider valuable to society. Social care providers are one example. They care for the vulnerable and help to alleviate pressure on the NHS, yet the cost of the NICs increase could be devastating for them. Care Forum Wales estimates that the cost to its members across Wales will total a staggering £45 million. I heard what was said from the Treasury Bench about additional support being allocated in the usual way, but I would like to know how that additional cost will be allocated to Wales. I understand that, in their conversations with the Welsh Government, the Government in Westminster are discussing the additional costs of only the public sector organisations that will be reimbursed directly. There are other examples in the third sector, including citizens advice bureaux, which, although they provide invaluable support to some of the most vulnerable in society, are facing significant additional costs without there being any talk of Government support.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the OBR had to amend the numbers that it produced after the Budget because it had reduced the cost of compensating the public sector and social care by around £800 million a year. Does he, like me, want the Minister to clarify whether the Government intended to put nearly £1 billion extra into social care costs, and when it was decided, and by whom, that they should not go ahead and should leave social care in the parlous position it now finds itself in?
Ben Lake
I very much agree. I hope that the Minister will return to that in her summing up.
I labour the point about the third sector and public sector organisations that do not stand to receive reimbursement from the Government because they are so crucial to delivering many of the public services that we have heard so much about in the debate. There is a real risk that if our social care hubs, hospices, dentists and GPs are not adequately reimbursed, all the Government will do is erode the value of the investment that they claim to be making in those services.
I could also say a little bit about the university sector. Higher education is a very important sector in my constituency: Ceredigion Preseli is home to two universities, Aberystwyth University and the University of Wales Trinity Saint David. Both organisations are currently facing very difficult times, as are most higher education institutions, and both state that they will be dealing with quite significant additional costs next year when the Government’s proposals come into force. There is no talk of additional support for those institutions, so I worry very much that we will lose the incredible economic contribution they make to my constituency, let alone their important social and cultural contribution.
Luke Murphy
Is the hon. Member about to come on to the part where he welcomes the largest real-terms settlement for Wales since devolution?
Ben Lake
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—we have been blessed with many of his contributions this afternoon. With the Barnett formula, I am not going to thank the hon. Gentleman’s Government for a larger settlement, because that settlement is only a function of spending decisions made to address the needs of public services in England. If they had proposed a reform of the Barnett formula to make it a proper needs-based formula, I would very much congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Government on doing so.
We all recognise the need to raise revenue to meet the challenges facing our economy. We have heard some alternative suggestions this afternoon—the Government could well have decided to look again at corporation tax, or at least to tackle businesses on the profits they make. Other proposals that the Government might have considered include changes to capital gains tax; for example, a full equalisation of capital gains tax rates could raise £14 billion a year. There has also been no mention by the Government of exploring a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. It is not fair that wealth inequality continues to grow at the expense of our public services and communities. It has been suggested by some that a 2% tax on assets over £10 million, which would target the top 20,000 richest people in the country, could raise £24 billion.
I fear that the proposals in this Bill will have a significant impact on both the workers and the businesses in my constituency, as well as—quite importantly—the provision of public services. We have already heard in this debate many alternative proposals that the Government could have implemented, but decided not to.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The decision we are taking today to raise employer’s national insurance contributions is a difficult one, but ultimately, it is the right choice. The situation we inherited from the last Government was so dire that it means tough choices need to be made. Asking larger businesses to pay a little more so that we can fix our broken services is a fairer option than asking working people—who already face the highest tax burden since the second world war—to pay more.
My case today is not only a moral case, but an economic one. People who think public services are a drain on the economy fail to understand how those public services make our economy function. I am reminded of a 70-year-old woman I met on the doorstep in East Thanet who was told she would have to wait 16 weeks for an initial scan to find out whether she had cancer, or the mother who had to drive around east Kent in the dark before Christmas to get medical treatment for her child who was suspected of having meningitis, because she could not register her child at a GP practice. Healthcare in east Kent is on its knees. This year, East Kent hospitals trust, which runs the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother hospital in Margate, recorded the highest number of 12-hour waiting times in England. When polled, only 45% of its staff said that they would be happy for a loved one to be treated at that trust—what an indictment.
I am prepared to accept that problems like this have existed for longer than 14 years in coastal constituencies such as mine. The NHS crisis is particularly acute in coastal communities such as East Thanet, as highlighted by a 2021 report by Chris Whitty entitled “Health in Coastal Communities”. We have some of the worst healthcare outcomes in England, with a higher rate of major diseases and a lower life expectancy, so this funding is essential for healthcare outcomes in East Thanet and in coastal communities across the country. There is a real need for a coastal communities healthcare strategy, but I challenge the Opposition to say how they would fund our NHS and improve health outcomes in coastal communities. They want all the benefits of the Budget, but they will not back the measures to deliver those benefits. They need to take some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in.
There are structural problems that we can put down to the last 14 years of Tory Government. Chronic mismanagement of the NHS and years of underfunding have left the health service crying out for help. Shifting public health responsibilities to local authorities makes sense and moving healthcare to where people live is an essential reform, but doing that while cutting real-terms funding for local authorities has been a disaster.
This is not just about making a moral argument for free healthcare at the point of use. I hope that argument has been won across most of society and in this place. This is an argument about people being able to contribute to the economy. We cannot have growth with a sick workforce and a failing healthcare system. This is about the people who are using savings to go private, or having to take time off work because they cannot afford to pay and are too sick to work. There are shift workers trying to earn money and waiting weeks for a doctor’s appointment, and small business owners working through healthcare issues when they should be getting treatment, because they cannot afford to take time off. Nobody says that this does not have an economic impact.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I know that difficult decisions have had to be made, but I have been talking to small business owners. I am particularly thinking of the owner of a chain of convenience stores in Lechlade, and the difficult decision he is having to make of which of his part-time workers he is going to lay off in the run-up to Christmas. Should not the difficult decisions be those of the big tech companies about whether they actually pay their fair share of corporation tax? Should they not be the really tough—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. If the hon. Lady wishes to speak later in the debate, she is very welcome to do so, but interventions have to be short, and we have a lot of people to get in.
Ms Billington
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree that if we are to revive the high street, we will need to make sure that the online giants pay their way, and I look forward to making that argument in the future.
I refer again to the 70-year-old woman I met on the doorstep in East Thanet who was told she had to wait 16 weeks for a potential cancer diagnosis. She also told me that this is impacting on her ability to provide childcare for her family. We sometimes do not appreciate the impact on society and our economy of having an inadequate healthcare system, but it has an enormously wide-ranging impact. Raising national insurance contributions on employers is a difficult choice, but given our economic inheritance and the dire state of our NHS, it is the right one.
Do the Opposition think we should not increase NHS funding by £25.6 billion or that we should not recruit 6,500 new teachers for our schools? If they agree with these investments, how do they suggest we pay for them? There is a choice—stability, investment and reform, or chaos, incompetence and stagnation. I urge the House to support these measures to fund the NHS that the economy desperately needs.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Government have repeatedly claimed that this is a tax on businesses, not a tax on working people, and how wrong they are. They are not only wrong, but deeply disingenuous to the people we represent who will see prices increase, their chances of employment become more difficult, and many businesses having to wind down or restrict their operations.
The owner of the Barley Mow pub in Hartford wrote to me expressing his concerns and frustration at the lack of detail the Government have provided about support for the hospitality industry. This echoes the representations made by UKHospitality, which has said that
“the tsunami of employment costs coming in April will ultimately do more to hamper growth than incentivise it. Increases to employer NICs and wages will make it harder for businesses to support employment and invest in their businesses.”
I would like to hear from the Economic Secretary, when she sums up, why the Government want the amazing pubs, restaurants and catering businesses in Huntingdon to suffer this unfair, ill thought through and deeply unpopular jobs tax.
The British Retail Consortium wrote to the Chancellor expressing its grave concerns about the impact this will have on the businesses it represents, with our largest supermarket chains having to pass on these costs to consumers, and that is before we talk about the impact of this Budget on farmers, but I am sure Labour Members will have plenty to say about that tomorrow.
Not only will businesses with high numbers of lower-paid workers be impacted, but I have received many emails from GP surgeries and hospices that are terrified about what this means for them. I pay tribute to the Cambridgeshire local medical committee for the work it has done in raising the fact that the average GP surgery in Huntington, with just under 14,000 patients, will face increased costs, with the minimum wage and national insurance changes, of approximately £48,000. That money is equivalent to the salary for three and a half sessions of a newly qualified GP, one full-time equivalent nurse, and almost two full-time healthcare assistants. Added to that, a GP who has served Huntingdon for 30 years told me that the increased costs might see many practitioners hand back their contracts. Who will suffer from that? The staff of Moat House surgery or Grove medical practice who could be out of jobs, and the patients of Priory Fields or Brampton surgeries who might lose their GPs.
Dr Duncan Outram and Dr Barbara Uszycka have a combined 62 years of service in the NHS, 50 of which have been serving Huntingdon. They told me that the estimated black hole of £37,000 is causing great concern not only about their future plans, but because it risks more young professionals leaving the NHS. GPs serve our communities in the most amazing way and they are a key part of medical care for so many of us. The impact that the measure will have on NHS provision is deeply damaging and must be reviewed. We must protect the NHS to ensure that our constituents get the care they need, but this policy does the opposite.
Added to the list of those concerned are hospices, which are already so overstretched. Despite being a key part of end of life care, they are terrified about the impact of this measure on the amazing care that they offer. Furthermore, we have hardly heard what it would mean for our armed forces. Although we constantly hear from the Government that they are prioritising national security, we do not know what the potential impact of this provision would be on the MOD’s budget. All that shows that the Government are rushing into implementing something, without any detail about what the impact will be in so many areas.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to rethink and have the moral courage to take ownership of their mistake. If they go ahead with this policy, we will see people lose their jobs, businesses be unable to expand, care provision stretched even further, and working people suffering. The Government should go back to their manifesto and say no to back-door stealth taxes on working people.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
The Budget delivered in this House a few weeks ago was a Budget for growth, investment and public services. It was a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who was direct about the scale of the challenge that we inherited from the Conservative party, and who was clear and optimistic that we can build a better country, but only with honesty and clarity about how we raise the revenue we need. The increase in employer national insurance contributions will raise £25 billion. That is a choice made by this Labour Government, but it was the only responsible choice available to us on discovering the depth of the damage done over the last 14 years.
Graham Stuart
The cost to the economy is over £25 billion, but the net cost, having adjusted for behavioural change and compensating the public sector, is more like £10 billion or £11 billion. Does he regret that this particular vehicle was chosen? It damages the economy, it will take nearly £20 billion out of people’s wages, and it raises only £10 billion or £11 billion. It is about the worst tax imposition we could think of.
Andrew Lewin
I do not regret the vehicle we have chosen. I have faith in the figures in the Red Book. Interestingly, I have heard colleagues on the Opposition Benches cite the OBR, and that is from the same party who, just two years ago when it was in government, wanted to get rid of the OBR and not listen to expert voices at all. Indeed, I remember them saying that they had “had enough of experts”.
We have heard lots of supposedly deep concern for business from Conservative Members. Of course that was not so much of an issue for the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who as Prime Minister told his Government to “eff business”. Or indeed for his successor, the former Member for South West Norfolk. Her one fiscal event as Prime Minister was called a “mini-Budget”, but the lasting damage that it did to our economy was anything but small—markets in turmoil, higher mortgage repayments for thousands of my constituents in Welwyn Hatfield, debt rising, debt interest payments up, and of course not even a hint of an apology.
As for the most recent Administration, I am sorry not to see the shadow Chancellor in his place. During the election campaign I hugely respected how many times he hit the airwaves of TV and radio stations to defend the manifesto that the Conservatives put to the country. For a verdict on that manifesto I defer to Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said:
“What the manifesto did not tell us was where the £10 to £20 billion of cuts to spending on unprotected public services…might come from. This manifesto remains silent on the wider problems facing core public services.”
The Labour party will not stay silent on the problems facing our public services. Opposition parties can choose fantasy economics; we choose a change to national insurance to fund the rescue and reform that our public services need. That change starts with paying our public servants properly. When I go through the Lobby to support this national insurance Bill, I will think of the serving members of the armed forces, who received a 6% pay rise from this Labour Government, the biggest in 22 years. I will think of the extra money in the pockets of the police, who faced down the shocking disorder in our communities across the country this summer. I will think of Daisy and Jake, the two paramedics I joined on a shift in Hertfordshire a few months ago.
Stuart Anderson
Has the hon. Member spoken to anyone in his constituency who is not in the public sector?
Andrew Lewin
Absolutely. I speak to businesses day in, day out. Those businesses say to me, “Thank goodness we have had a change in government after the past 14 years.” I will return to Daisy and Jake, because I would like to put them on the record. I joined those two paramedics on a shift in Hertfordshire. They are extraordinarily dedicated public servants finally receiving an overdue boost to their incomes.
I also think of our teachers. I have visited a different school in Welwyn Hatfield in almost every week of this job, and it is invariably the highlight of my week to meet such dedicated staff and inspiring pupils. At the same time, it is evident how many schools are stretched to their limit and beyond. This change to national insurance helps to fund a billion in extra revenue for the special education needs and disabilities budget and, further, it makes sure that we can recruit 6,500 additional teachers across the country.
Everyone in this House has a choice today. Members can choose to oppose the Bill and by doing so confirm that they are not serious about the public finances or our public services, or they can support it, and back our nurses, the police, the fire service, teachers and our serving military personnel. I will back this Bill as I backed the Budget. Together, they are the foundation on which this Government will deliver on our manifesto and drive the change our country so badly needs.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I welcome some of the measures introduced in the Budget, such as more investment in the NHS to start repairing all the damage done to our local health services by the Conservatives. However, the increase to employer national insurance contributions is the wrong decision and will have a serious impact on key sectors and services across the country.
A few examples of such negative impacts stand out. First, on local authorities, I was glad to hear from Somerset council that it believes it will be fully compensated in the settlement for its share of the increase in employer national insurance contributions this year, but as the Minister knows, Somerset council works with care organisations and care homes to provide care for more than 5,000 people. As their share is not covered, those companies will need to increase their charges to Somerset council, impacting hugely on the council finances. Will the Minister commit to supporting the council with those extra costs?
Secondly, many community pharmacies that provide essential services in my constituency and across the country, affecting everyone, are struggling with existing financial pressures. The community pharmacy sector has faced a decade of funding cuts, and the NHS workload has increased. We have already lost 1,200 pharmacies from our communities since 2015. However, as independent contractors, pharmacies will not be exempt from the rise in national insurance. How does the Minister expect pharmacies to continue to support communities and the NHS when yet more pressure is being placed on them?
Finally, the Government have made funding and supporting access to nurseries a priority, which I welcome, but raising the national insurance rate for employers could worsen the shortfall of nursery funding, with parents having to pay. The Early Years Alliance said that 95% of childcare providers were set to increase fees, as the Government did not mitigate the national insurance contributions increase and the rise in the minimum wage. Will the Minister commit to supporting nurseries too?
In conclusion, raising national insurance is a tax on jobs that will deal a hammer blow to small businesses and struggling care providers. Should the Government not look to raise money by reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks or by asking social media giants to pay their fair share, rather than burdening sectors that provide essential services to our communities?
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is real pleasure to rise in support of the Bill and to follow excellent speeches from Labour Members setting out eloquently why the Bill is necessary. As the House has dissected at length in recent weeks in the debates following the Budget and last week’s debate on the Finance Bill, which I was happy to take part in, the public finances that the Government have inherited are clearly in an incredibly parlous state—that is probably the politest description that anyone has used today. I want to outline briefly why the Bill is necessary and how it will protect and promote small businesses across our country.
The Bill forms part of a long-term plan to fix the foundations of our public expenditure and provide much-needed support to public services, which we must have if all our constituents are to receive the support they need. The measures in the Bill on national insurance cannot be seen in isolation; they are part of a range of actions announced at the Budget, including abolishing non-dom tax loopholes, extending the levy on oil and gas companies, and reforming stamp duty land tax.
The Bill represents not the easy choice so often taken by the Conservatives, who self-evidently failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining, while still putting up taxes to their highest levels for 70 years. It represents the tough choices that are necessary to get us back on an even footing. The measures contained in the Bill are in large part how the new Government will begin to address the need to cut NHS waiting times, which we all know were at record highs before the devastation caused by the covid-19 pandemic, as well as the crises in our courts, local government, social care and our schools among other areas.
I want to focus in particular on how small businesses are protected in this legislation as well as more broadly on the measures announced at the Budget. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy across our country, and particularly so in my constituency. One of the great pleasures of the last few months has been to visit and meet the people who run small businesses across Dartford, in Swanscombe, Greenhithe, Longfield and other places.
I want to quote the Federation of Small Businesses, since it has been mentioned in the debate. In response to the Budget, and recognising that it was a tough Budget, it stated:
“Increasing the employment allowance for small businesses by a record amount is a very welcome move and we’re pleased the Chancellor has heard us loud and clear.”
Ben Obese-Jecty
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member stated that he has spoken to constituents and many small businesses across his constituency, but he quoted the Federation of Small Businesses. Could we hear from businesses that he has spoken to as to how this measure benefits them?
Jim Dickson
The businesses in my constituency feel that the most important thing is to have a good trading environment, and I am happy to report that they feel that if we have support for public services and economic growth, the trading environment will be right for them.
The FSB also said:
“Against a challenging backdrop, today’s Budget shows a clear direction in business policy now for the whole of this Parliament to target support at small businesses, rather than big corporates—prioritising everyday entrepreneurs working in local communities in all parts of the country.”
That is thanks to the choice that the Labour Government have made to protect small businesses by increasing the employment allowance, as has been said, and expanding it to all eligible employers.
It must also be seen alongside the Government’s plans to rebalance business rates and new measures announced in September, which I very much welcome, to support small businesses and the self-employed by tackling the scourge of late payments, which, according to the Smart Data Foundry, cost small and medium-sized enterprises £22,000 a year on average and, according to research by the Federation of Small Businesses, lead 50,000 businesses to close each year. Taken on balance, the measures to assist small businesses and the measures to invest in public services make this a Budget that is positive for our country and will help to rebuild our economy.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
There appears to be a glaring omission on the part of the Government: without a thriving private sector, there is no public sector to fund at all. I wish that Labour would acknowledge that much more vehemently and clearly than it appears to.
The Government talk a lot about public services and how the proposals they have put forward in the Budget will support a thriving public sector, but we do not hear about the public sector needing to deliver much more, in terms of productivity gains. If we keep throwing money into public services without a serious plan for structural reform, we fail every single stakeholder—the taxpayer, and, if we are talking about the NHS, the patient and the doctor.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
We have heard a lot this afternoon about investment in the public sector and what the proposals will do to small businesses, but we have not heard the Opposition recognise that this country needs a healthy workforce. The Bill proposes a sustainable and manageable approach to funding that healthy workforce. Will the hon. Gentleman describe to the House how damaging the previous Government’s treatment of the workforce was, and the long-standing and growing number of people claiming out-of-work benefits? Does he not see that the Bill will make a sustainable contribution?
Bradley Thomas
I think the hon. Lady misses the point that I am making. If we are to have a thriving, sustainable set of public services, it is not just a case of funding them; we need structural reform, so that we can deliver the best-quality services at the point of need. Take the NHS as an example. It is fundamentally different from how it was at its inception. People live longer and suffer from different illnesses. It is incumbent on Government, the whole of the public sector and this Parliament to focus on how money is spent to deliver value for money for everyone involved.
A few weeks ago, the Chancellor said that businesses that were concerned about the impact of proposals in this Budget should “cut their cloth accordingly”. Well, the same should apply to Government. Every single one of us should challenge Government to spend our money much more effectively. Once we do that, the tax burden will come down, and when that happens, we can pass on those savings. It is those savings that will ultimately underpin and provide the foundation for an economy that will grow and incentivise businesses across the board.
The Government talk a lot about the climate and the context that they inherited, but they repeatedly fail to acknowledge covid—one of the biggest public finance interventions this country has seen, which took place only a few years ago.
Tom Hayes
I agree that there needs to be reform of the NHS alongside this investment, and I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In a recent speech, the Secretary of State set out what some of those reforms could be; I would welcome hearing what the hon. Gentleman thinks the reforms to go alongside the investment ought to be. Would he acknowledge, too, that one of the reasons why the NHS was in such a difficult position when dealing with the pandemic was that it was starved of funding and left under-prepared?
Bradley Thomas
Absolutely not. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Under the previous Government, the NHS received record levels of funding. The Government have committed additional funds to the NHS, but they have not put forward a productivity improvement plan. The Government are unable to deliver structural reforms because they are in the pocket of their union paymasters. They have zero incentive at all to structurally reform the public services that they claim to care about so dearly. I touched on covid and the financial climate that this Government inherited. Over 14 years, the previous Government delivered 800 jobs per day. The previous Government also delivered a direct cut of £900 in national insurance to the pocket of every “working person”.
Governing is about choices. In this Budget, the Government are borrowing £40 billion of additional spending. In reality, we are seeing the same old tax-and-spend Labour. Let us look at some of those choices. National insurance contributions are up. The Chancellor said that NIC increases for employers would be a jobs tax. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that would be a straightforward breach of the manifesto. Rate relief is down. A typical pub is paying £6,000 more in business rates per annum. There is the family farm tax, which I desperately hope this Government will do a U-turn on, and the education tax.
Let us look at the impact of all those decisions. The economy is flatlining—there was 0.1% growth in quarter 3. Inflation is up, from 1.7% to 2.3%. There was a 64% increase in business closures the week after the Budget. Asda has said that the Government’s decisions in the Budget risk price rises. John Lewis has said that it is worried about the impact of the national minimum wage increase. Two thirds of businesses claim that they are looking at freezing recruitment or making job cuts. We have already heard hon. Members talk about the impact on the charity sector. In fact, during this debate, I received an email from YMCA, which said that because of the increase in national insurance that it will have to pay in Worcestershire, it will look to freeze all recruitment and probably make redundancies. It will not be able to give a pay award to any of its staff, and it will look at cutting services. That is damning. We see from the Government an ideological pursuit of a policy that is really a false economy. Labour is failing the very working person that it claims to be protecting.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I have been an MP for five months. I have had some wonderful moments in my constituency and in this place, but there have also been some tough and sobering moments. One of those was soon after the election, when I sat here listening to the Chancellor’s statement on the public spending inheritance. I heard about the huge hole in the public finances, the promises made without the money to pay for them, a promised new hospitals programme with no money behind it, and promised compensation for miscarriages of justice and promised funding for Ukraine that were not in the Conservatives’ budget. I was truly shocked by the sheer scale of Conservative economic mismanagement and—I will admit—I was intimidated by the sheer scale of the challenge to put it right.
Stuart Anderson
Has the hon. Member seen a breakdown of the £22 billion black hole? Because I have not.
Olivia Bailey
The hon. Member should go on Google.
In the months that have followed, I have been proud that this Government have been willing to make the hard choices necessary to protect our economic security, and have taken the long-term decisions necessary to fix the foundations of our country and finally prioritise our broken public services. We are investing in the NHS, rebuilding our crumbling classrooms and recruiting thousands of teachers to end the era of government by press release and empty promises. That is why I support this legislation.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The hon. Lady stated that she was intimidated by her Budget. I should imagine that is very true—
Paul Holmes
Okay. Well, was she intimidated by her Budget? I take it that she would be intimidated by the growth that has been revised downwards, by business confidence crashing, and by private sector employers stating that they will have to let employees go because of the red tape put on businesses, all through this Government’s Budget.
Olivia Bailey
I ask the hon. Gentleman not to twist my words. I very clearly said that I was intimidated by the sheer scale of the mess that the Conservative party left our economy in, and the hard conversations I have had to have with my constituents because of how much harder that has made it to make things better for them.
Some of the bigger businesses in my constituency will find the changes difficult, and I thank those who have shared their views with me, but I believe that this was a fair choice, given the situation that we are in. Small businesses in my constituency will benefit from the changes, and there is also the benefit to all of us from our significant investment in public services. Hairdressers, beauticians, cleaners, independent shops and artisan bakers—the lifeblood of Reading West and Mid Berkshire —will stand to benefit from the expanded employment allowance, which will allow them to employ the equivalent of four full-time workers on the national living wage without paying any national insurance contributions on their wages.
Businesses in my constituency will also benefit from our reforms of business rates, our action to tackle late payments, our significant investment in roads and infrastructure, our plan to restore our high streets, our commitment to the lowest corporation tax in the G7, and, of course, our cast-iron commitment to protecting economic stability and growing our economy.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), the Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it. They say that they support investment in our public services, but they do not say how they would pay for it. They have perfected faux outrage, but they crashed the economy and left a huge mess for us to clean up. They are yet again unwilling to make tough decisions in the national interest, but we will not repeat their mistakes. We will fix the foundations of our economy and our public services, working hand in hand with our great British businesses, and we will get our future back on track.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
What is the café owner, the hotelier, the mobile mechanic, the gardener, the florist and—dare I even say it?—the farmer, if not an ordinary working person? The Government’ s false prospectus and their dubious cleavage between who is and who is not an ordinary working person is the snake oil that will be their undoing sooner rather than later. I also inform Treasury Ministers, which I really should not have to do, that when they refer to a business consisting of four or five people, they are referring to a microbusiness, not a small business. One would really expect the Treasury to be able to make such a distinction.
The Scottish Government pointed out last week that Labour’s raid on national insurance would leave a shortfall of at least £200 million in Scottish public sector finances. Labour’s own figures show that the cost to Scotland of the national insurance increase will be over £500 million, including a cost of £191 million to Scotland’s NHS, and that is corroborated by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which has estimated that the Scottish Government will be left with a £500 million shortfall as a result of these taxes. In my constituency, Perth and Kinross council is facing a £5.4 million recurring pressure, while Angus council faces a £5 million pound pressure. When indirect employees such as those in childcare settings, general practices, colleges or social care are included, the figure in Scotland rises to £750 million pounds, for which we have been offered £300 million in compensation. It is absolutely scandalous. In Scotland, which has more top universities per head of population than any other nation in the world, the university sector is under tremendous pressure. And what of the private sector? The bill for Scotland—the gross quantum by which it will be penalised by this fiscal misadventure—is £2 billion, and the private sector is on the hook for £1.25 billion of that, which is entirely unacceptable.
While we are talking about what is happening to Scotland, wouldn’t it have been nice if some of the Scottish Labour MPs had turned up for the debate to speak up for their constituents? [Interruption.] Perhaps one who was not a parliamentary private secretary, and did not have to be here.
About 600,000 people in Scotland are employed in the public sector, making up 22% of the workforce, as opposed to about 17% in the UK as a whole. That means that exposure in Scotland is even greater. The Fraser of Allander Institute has said that the UK Government appear to be applying Barnett consequentials to the public sector compensation for increased NICs, although public sector employees are not uniformly distributed between Scotland and rest of the UK. It notes:
“The UK Government has set aside £4.7 billion to compensate public sector employers”,
although the institute says that “it remains unclear” how they have done that. It says that
“The size of the Scottish devolved public sector is 547,000, which is 9.2% of all public sector employment in the UK”.
That is a consequence of Scotland’s geography, and of political decisions that have been made in Scotland. I am not shying away from that; far from it. I am proud of it.
The Westminster Government have increased the Scottish block grant for 2025-26 by £3.4 billion, which comes with a £2 billion clawback. That is devolution in a nutshell. The increase in national insurance will prove disastrous for wages, public services, businesses and growth in Scotland. Ahead of Scotland’s Budget tomorrow, it is vital for the UK Government to reconsider their approach and fully fund this Labour national insurance raid.
The OBR has said that it believes most of the increase in national insurance will be passed on to workers and consumers in the form of lower wages and higher prices—you do not need to be an economic wizard to work that out—and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that the move will increase the cost of employing a worker in the bottom fifth of earners by 4%, compared with around 1.5% for workers in the top fifth of earners. As such, it is clear that this intervention will hit lower-paid workers worst and increase the risk of fewer jobs being available in the marketplace.
Business owners have said that they are now rethinking expansion plans for 2025 or delaying planned investments. In a joint letter earlier this month, 81 of the biggest retail names in the UK warned the Chancellor that her Budget
“will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”
The chief executive officers of Sainsbury’s, Asda and BT are all talking about rises in their operating costs, which will have to be funded somewhere, most likely through price rises.
The British Medical Association has described the national insurance increase as an
“existential threat to NHS General Practice”.
GPs are already struggling with a recruitment crisis and staff shortages at a time of growing demand and increasing pressures, and a survey of care home providers in Scotland found that nearly half of them are noting the very real possibility of service closure as a result of the increase in national insurance. Similarly, charities are negatively affected.
This measure is dysfunctional in a literal sense. It will not deliver what the Government hope; rather, as we all know and the Government should know, it will reduce growth, suppress wages, cost jobs, lower recruitment, increase inflation and lower living standards. What kind of Government would carry out such a calamitous act of economic self-harm? Well, we know: this kind of Government. I look forward to voting against this Bill tonight.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
In the recent autumn Budget—it might feel like a long way away, but it was only a few weeks ago—the Chancellor made a decision to change the system of employer’s national insurance contributions. The purpose was to make the largest businesses make a contribution to fund the public services on which working people and businesses rely.
As part of the changes to national insurance, we have increased the employment allowance to £10,500, explicitly to protect small businesses. The changes mean that a quarter of a million employers will see the amount of national insurance that they pay get cut.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the hon. Gentleman seriously consider a GP surgery in my constituency with seven doctors and six members of staff to be one of the largest businesses, even though it is suffering from tens of thousands of pounds in extra costs and will have to lay people off, which will reduce capacity?
Mark Ferguson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he makes an excellent point that I was hoping to come to later in my speech. The previous Government cut national insurance, and do you know what was also cut? The number of GPs in my constituency. It is more complicated than Members pretend; it is not “national insurance vs. GPs”. If it were that simple, I would have more GPs, not less, in Gateshead Central and Whickham. I would urge those who were enthusiastically cheerleading the previous Government to take a moment to think about that.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is right to say that politics is far more complicated than soundbites. The previous Government, alongside their coalition partners, brought in austerity, which had a huge impact on small and medium-sized businesses, because it affected the spending power of working people. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mark Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is always worth reminding Members of all shades and stripes of the existence of the coalition Government. Quite often I hear the Liberal Democrats talk about 14 years of terrible decisions, but I am afraid that they have to own five of those years.
We have not heard the Opposition thank this Government for increasing the minimum wage—the words are “thank you”, by the way—to £12.21 an hour. As we have seen, when we increase the minimum wage and put more money in the pockets of working people of all stripes, we see more money spent on high streets and in local communities, and more thriving local businesses. I have been meeting local businesses recently, including Prism Coffee in Saltwell park—it does an excellent flat white, by the way—the Rare Drop in Low Fell, which has an absolutely fantastic selection of beers and cheeses, and my next-door neighbour, the owner of Creations and Alterations, who can do some work on your suit.
But what people in Low Fell have been speaking to me about recently is crime—retail crime and crime on our high streets—and we are going to tackle that by raising money and spending more on the police so that they can be not only a visible presence in our communities but solve crimes. For too long, break-ins have been ignored, and that is a fundamental problem for businesses. If they are having to spend £1,400 on getting shutters for their shop on the high street, that is a fundamental hit to their bottom line. If they are having the back door of their business kicked in every night of the week, whether money is stolen or not, that it is pushing up their insurance premiums and it is a hit to their bottom line. How do we tackle that? With more police on the streets, and we will fund that with this national insurance increase.
Dave Doogan
The Government will receive £10 billion from this intervention in the tax regime. How many times are they going to spend it?
Mark Ferguson
I thank the hon. Member for his point. This is what is known as a balanced Budget, and we on this side of the House are going to do something remarkable. The amount of money that we raise will match the amount of money that we spend. I know that might seem alien to some of those on the Opposition Benches, but that is what we are going to do.
Mark Ferguson
No, I have been more than generous in taking interventions so far.
It is amazing to see the anger that has been generated among Conservative Members. Let us remember their record, because it is important for the context. In government, they doubled the national debt, stagnated wages—which is awful for businesses, by the way, especially small businesses that rely on local people spending money—and caused a cost of living crisis. Their own Prime Minister, Liz Truss—remember the name?—delivered a Budget made up of £45 billion of unfunded tax commitments and crashed the value of the pound to its lowest ever value against the dollar. The British people suffered, waiting lists soared, schools crumbled, buses did not come on time or at all and we waited hours for ambulances or years for surgery.
I am concerned about GPs, because I am sick of people having to call at 8 o’clock every morning to demand an appointment for themselves or for their child, only to be told that there are no appointments that day. This Government will invest in our NHS to tackle the GP crisis, because that is what hurts working people. When people are unwell, when people cannot go to work and when there is crime in their communities, that has an impact on business. It is false to say otherwise, and we cannot continue having this debate. We are taking a balanced and, in my view, reasonable position, which is why I will be voting for the Bill this evening. We raise taxes and we spend the money on things that are good for society. We cannot pretend that we can do good things for society without raising the taxes to pay for them.
Like many Labour Members, I have a huge amount of experience of opposition. I have never sat on the Opposition Benches and I do not want to sit on them any time soon, but I have a huge amount of experience of the business of opposition, and I would gently offer some advice that I doubt will be taken. You are going to have to do a lot better than this if you want to convince—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do apologise. The Conservatives will need to do a great deal to convince the British people that they have heard the lesson that was given to them in July. If they continue in this vein of listening to only one side of the conversation—the one that they want to hear—they might not like the answer they get.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is the job of any Government to grow the economy and grow jobs. The best way of delivering money for public services is to grow the tax base without having to increase taxes, so it is hardly surprising that the Chancellor wrapped up her bad Budget as a growth Budget. Unfortunately, when she unwrapped it at the Dispatch Box, it was nothing of the kind. The Treasury’s own analysis said that growth would peak at 2% next year, and then fall for the rest of the decade. The OBR’s analysis said that the Budget was inflationary. It is bad for the economy and it is bad for the businesses that we rely on to grow our tax base for public services.
I turn now to public services, particularly health and social care. The Chancellor knows—and knew—that the increase in national insurance contributions will be devastating for healthcare, which is why she exempted the NHS, but that shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of how healthcare is delivered in this country. The NHS directly delivers a part of healthcare that is free at the point of use, but much of the rest is delivered indirectly through contracting, via partnerships such as GP practices, charities such as hospices, and businesses such as pharmacy, dentistry and social care providers. The NHS cannot exist without those key healthcare services, none of which shares in the exemption from the national insurance contribution rises.
The chief executive of Hospice UK has said that that means charitable income raised by hospices to the tune of £30 million will be taken in national insurance contributions to fund the NHS, which does not properly fund hospices in the first place. The British Dental Association wrote to the Secretary of State to ask whether there has been an impact assessment of the effect of national insurance contribution rises on the finances of dentists. The answer was that no impact assessment had been done. The Government do not even understand the effects of their Budget and these national insurance contribution rises on healthcare in this country.
For two local hospices just outside my constituency, Mountbatten Isle of Wight and Mountbatten Hampshire, which serve my constituents, the combined effect of these national insurance contribution rises and the pay rises for nurses, for which the NHS will not pay the hospices, is £900,000 of costs, with not a penny promised or delivered through the contract with the integrated care board.
It is all very well for Labour Members to say that this Budget will deliver for the NHS, but that is not much good when it will put further pressure on GP practices, pharmacies, hospices, dentistry and social care. If those services crumble, the NHS will not be able to continue in its current form, so I urge Labour Members to press the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to get on with his reforms to properly fund GPs, hospices, pharmacies and dentists before they have to make tough decisions that will mean redundancies and job losses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have just calculated how to get everybody in before we run out of time, and I will have to drop the time limit to four minutes.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is clear to everyone on this side of the House that the measures in the Bill are a vital step towards securing the long-term stability of the public finances. We are not prepared to continue with the fiction that no difficult decisions are required to balance the books. Unlike the Conservatives, this Labour Government are not interested in more decline, more austerity or forcing the poorest in society to pay for the previous Government’s mistakes.
The decisions that we are taking are not easy. Increasing employer national insurance contributions to 15% is not easy. Reducing the secondary threshold to £5,000 is not easy. And, of course, constituents are absolutely right to ask me why this is happening. Well, that question would be best answered by the Conservatives.
The Conservatives crashed our economy, mortgage rates went through the roof, and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was wasted on a failed asylum system and on dodgy covid contracts. They promised the victims of the infected blood scandal that they would be compensated, but they did not put a single penny aside for it. They promised the same for the sub-postmasters. They promised 40 new hospitals, but they did not allocate anywhere near enough money to deliver them, and they are still pretending that they would not have given a single penny in pay rises to our public sector workers.
The Conservatives spent the national reserve three times over in the first three months of this financial year, and all before calling an election they expected to lose, so somebody else could clean up the mess. They chose to govern not in the national interest, but in their own interest. Some Conservative Members have been brave enough to come to the House today and remind us of their great legacy, but I have to tell them that 14 years of failure and a £22 billion black hole, leaving our nation on the brink of bankruptcy, is their legacy.
By making changes to national insurance contributions, we will be able to provide the funding to public services that is desperately needed, including, but not limited to, investing £25 billion in our NHS, recruiting 6,500 new teachers and providing local authorities with £600 million for social care.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Sewards
I will not, as I want to ensure everybody gets in.
In addition, we are committed to protecting small businesses by increasing the employment allowance to £10,500. We are blessed in Leeds South West and Morley with hundreds of small businesses, right across the constituency, from Queen Street in Morley, to Wortley, and back again to Ardsley. I can say to many of them that the changes will mean that many small businesses will pay the same or less than they do now.
We will not run away from the difficult decisions—we back our country to succeed. Given the obvious opposition of Conservative Members to the measures, I ask them, how will they pay for our public services? Perhaps I need to give way at this point.
Patrick Spencer
I serve on the Education Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and I wonder what he will say to people who work in the education sector, many of whom are low paid and running schools that support teaching assistants to work with children with special educational needs and disabilities. They now face a bigger wage bill because of the measures the Government are introducing. Will the hon. Gentleman address those points?
Mr Sewards
In the minute remaining to me, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he needs to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition. The simple truth is that she has welcomed the positive spending plans that we have put forward in the Budget, but has rejected every revenue-raising measure we have suggested.
We are going to take the tough decisions, including those set out in the Bill, to fix the foundations of our economy and restore our public finances. The choice is pretty clear: a Labour Government who invest in our country’s future or a Conservative party still obsessed with fantasy politics based on saving the party, not our country. The choice is clear, and I know which side I am on.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Since the changes to national insurance were announced in the Budget, I have been contacted by constituents from a whole load of different sectors who have said how worried they are about the changes.
I have had deeply concerned GPs tell me about the impact the changes will have on their already overstretched budgets. Local dentists, of whom there are already far too few, have said the changes make it even harder for them to deliver treatments under the current NHS dental contract. Small business owners, who, as we have heard, are the backbone of much of the local economy, especially in North Norfolk, are worried the changes might push their slim profit margins into the red.
I want to raise the plight of a very important part of the North Norfolk business economy: our small cultural venues. I heard recently from Debbie, who runs the much-loved Sheringham Little Theatre, which might be little in name but is big in impact. Sheringham Little Theatre has nurtured the careers of dozens of young theatre performers, as well as technicians, writers and directors. It is a fantastic venue to put on productions, and was supported by one of North Norfolk’s most famous residents, the late and great John Hurt. As a registered charity, Sheringham Little Theatre also provides volunteering opportunities that are vital to reducing social isolation and supporting the local community. The changes in the Budget are a cause for serious concern to Debbie and her team. They have been able to secure fundraising in the past for exciting new projects and capital investment, but now they will need to raise thousands of pounds in donations just to keep the lights on.
Even in commercial venues, the pressure of a blanket increase in employer national insurance is threatening jobs and entire venues. Cromer pier is one of the most famous icons in North Norfolk, and is 2024’s pier of the year. Even with a commercial operator, who has brought it from loss making to net revenue generating for the local council, these changes risk shuttering Europe’s last end-of-pier theatre.
The lack of protection for arts and cultural venues is hugely demoralising for both those venues, and prevents them from making new investments and providing more opportunities locally. North Norfolk’s creative industry is incredibly exciting and growing at pace. The loss of venues and organisations such as the Little Theatre would be a hammer blow for a blossoming sector in my constituency. Our small cultural and arts venues contribute so much to North Norfolk, both through the joy they bring with their events and through their contribution to our local economy. They are crucial to our tourism industry as well.
Unlike those on the Conservative Benches, the Liberal Democrats are happy to share our alternative solutions when it comes to our concerns with the Budget. Rather than imposing a blanket pre-profit tax such as this, why do the Government not try a tech tax, tighten up on tax havens that are still Crown dependencies or disallow brand licensing as a deduction against profits by global corporations? Where we were once promised radical reform, we have ended up with hope-crushing, growth-stifling jobs taxes. It cannot be fair that organisations such as Sheringham Little Theatre are forced to struggle while billionaire tech barons such as Elon Musk and others continue to sit on great hoards of taxable revenue.
I hope the Government will listen to the Liberal Democrats’ proposals and go back to the drawing board to make their plans fairer for everyone. Unfortunately, the Bill punishes small businesses, burdens local authorities and adds even more strain to our health services. I will vote against it this evening.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
As a new Member of Parliament, I was looking at the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), when he was responding to the Minister, and trying to figure out why he looked so familiar. I realised that it was because he was Liz Truss’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury; the person who had to go out and defend Liz Truss’s mini-Budget. I therefore wonder why this new Conservative party led by a new person is sending out Liz Truss’s Treasury Minister to respond to a Labour Budget that is mopping up some of the mess created by her. When I realised that, it got me thinking about how much we should be listening to the Conservative party. This is a party that, in its contributions today, has shown no desire to learn a lesson from the election or listen to voters who were so damaged in their incomes and their lives by the Government we have replaced, but only a desire to play politics at its worst. The Conservative party has done that rather than actually scrutinise what this Government’s Budget is intended to achieve.
It is worth reflecting on what has happened over recent years. The economy crashed, mortgages were sent through the roof and an early election was called to avoid the Conservative party having to deliver the Budget. There were covid contracts that cost this country millions and a £22 billion black hole; that is what this Government are having to respond to.
Stuart Anderson
As this is such an important topic, why are there fewer than half a dozen Back-Bench Government MPs here to discuss it? It is not important enough to get their Benches full?
Tom Hayes
I have literally just said that this debate should not be about party politics, but about the scrutiny of this Government’s Budget. Instead of asking questions about the nature and substance of the Budget, the Opposition are resorting to party politics. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) says from a sedentary position, we could list debates such as the Grenfell Tower inquiry debate yesterday, during which Conservative Members were deserting their Benches.
The burden of tax has fallen on working people for far too long under the Conservatives. Working people have suffered in many more ways, too: they have been unable to get the NHS appointments they want, the mortgages they want and all the services they should be entitled to. When I have knocked on doors in Bournemouth East and spoken with thousands of people over the last two years, the overwhelming feeling has been of hopelessness. It is the feeling that nothing ever changes in politics because there is a constant back and forth between our Benches about unimportant things rather than a focus on what those people actually want.
People want an NHS that will truly deliver. They want the 40,000 additional appointments a week. They want the billion pounds that is being invested in SEND. They want the £600 million going into social care. They want the £22 billion going into our NHS to start to fix the problems that have been ongoing for 14 years. I say to Opposition Members that if they are dedicated to their constituencies, if they care deeply about putting our public services back on track, and if they care about an economy that grows so that we have private businesses supporting our investment in the public sector, they should be voting with the Government tonight. I am disappointed to see so many of them saying that they will not be doing so.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
We are the Opposition. You are the Government.
Tom Hayes
We are the Government taking decisions in the national interest. The Conservatives are the Opposition taking decisions on behalf of their party’s interest. That is why, I am afraid, the Conservatives will not be coming back into power any time soon. They are not prepared to listen to what voters want, they are not prepared to take the tough decisions, and they are not prepared to come to the table, be constructive and try to put right the problems that they have created.
We have a long road ahead to put our NHS our economy and our public finances back on track, but this is a Government with a historic majority and a historic mandate to serve our nation’s interest. I call on those on the Opposition Benches—obviously not the Conservatives—to support this Government in what we are doing, because, together, we can put this country back together.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
We have a mission-led Government. I am not sure whether anybody knows exactly what that means, but we do know what the mission is meant to be: delivering for working people. But I am afraid that the Government have forgotten how working people become working people. It is the people—the other people—who employ them. All of us in this House want excellent public services, but it is only the Conservatives who understand that to get excellent public services, business needs to generate the wealth. The Government have a bit of a “four legs good, two legs bad” mantra that sees business as a cash cow to be milked to pay for the public sector. They have forgotten that fundamental dependency. They have even messed up the “four legs good, two legs bad” theory, because they seem to have forgotten that a very large part of what delivers our public services is people—people who are not directly employed by the public sector.
Let us take nurseries as an example. We have had another mission this week on early years education, which I welcome, but it will be hampered in its delivery by this national insurance contributions rise. Then there are the universities. They received a bonus of £390 million from a fee increase a couple of weeks ago, but they will be paying £400 million in extra national insurance contributions.
I have also heard from many GPs across my constituency in East Hampshire, who see the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The Minister says that the Government will take care of this in the settlement for GPs, which is fine, but it should have come on top of what they should have been doing for GPs anyway. Lord Darzi and the Secretary of State have been talking about increasing the focus on primary care. We know how the Treasury works when it is making its spending allocations to Departments; things will be tucked in under that settlement, so we need to see it rise. How do the Government think GP practices plan? Here we are in December, and the new financial year starts at the beginning of April. Do Ministers not think that, in the national health service, general practitioners need certainty now about what is going to happen?
The wider point is this: the Treasury can reimburse GPs, but it cannot reimburse the private sector. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a tax on business. Taxes can only ever ultimately fall on people. They fall on the owners of that business, the customers of that business, or the employees of that business. The analogy for the Treasury reimbursing GP practices for their increased costs is the employees of a private company reimbursing their employer for that cost. It is they who will ultimately pay. Economists are united in saying that employer national insurance contributions are only ever, in the end, seen in lower wages or lower employment figures. The Government talk about difficult decisions, but difficult decisions are the ones that employers will be faced with: do I cut down my wage settlements or do I let people go?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Not more than half an hour ago, I met a businessman from Northern Ireland whose firm employs 1,200 people. He said national insurance contributions will cost the firm almost £1 million a year. The cost will ultimately be passed on in its food prices, which will rise by between 15% and 20%, and the ordinary man or woman on the street will pay for it. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is where the Labour party has got this wrong?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This is not some trivial increase that is easy for an organisation to absorb. While 1.2 percentage points may not sound like much, with the serious decrease in the threshold at which it starts being paid, it is a lot of money. The cost of employing the average worker on medium earnings goes up by £900. For a 21-year-old on the legal minimum wage working full time, the cost goes up by £770. Moreover, it is regressive because it will fall more harshly on people at the lower end of the wage spectrum and on people who are part time. It cannot be seen in isolation; it must be seen alongside all the other things the Government are doing. Of course, the national living wage has risen. That increase is a good thing in itself, but the effect compounds with the other measures being taken.
Two of the three volume employer sectors in this country—retail and hospitality—are also seeing a massive reduction in the business rates relief they are getting next year. When unemployment hits, young people are always hit first and most, and that will be true again. It will hit those furthest from the labour market, those who need most help, those coming back to work after a long period and those who were ex-offenders. I sometimes wonder if Ministers talk to each other about the contradiction and irony of one of them producing a document called, “Get Britain Working” while their colleague is hellbent on doing the opposite.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
It is good to speak in this important debate. This is an issue of much importance, in part because it touches on trust in politics. We know from looking at the datasets that trust in politics has fallen to a record low in this country. People sadly do not trust politicians any more to deliver on the commitments they set out in their manifestos and to bring the change necessary to improve our public services. That is the data we can see, and we can see it because of the decisions of the Conservative party.
Patrick Spencer
Does the hon. Member not think that the fact the Labour party went into the last general election promising not to raise taxes on working people might be part of the problem?
Dan Tomlinson
We have stuck to the commitments we made in our manifesto, and that is why the British people will see over the months and years to come that they voted for change and investment in our public services, and that is what this Budget makes possible.
When we came into power in July, we faced a difficult economic inheritance. I wish we had taken power in more benign circumstances, but Opposition Members will know that public sector debt had increased to 100% of GDP—the same size as the economy—and trillions of pounds, constraining our ability—[Interruption.] They are chuntering from the Front Bench, but it is true that public sector debt increased to 100% of GDP—a massive increase on the Conservatives’ watch—making it more difficult for us to manage the public finances in a sustainable way, which is what we want to do and what they failed to do.
We also took over after 14 years of failure on productivity and wage growth. If wages had grown in line with the pre-financial crisis trend, families in my constituency and constituencies across the country would not be £100 or £200 better off a year; each worker would be £10,700 better off a year.
Stuart Anderson
On productivity, all the public sector wage increases that have been given since the Government have been in power come with no productivity requests or increases. How does the hon. Member square that circle?
Dan Tomlinson
I think we will see productivity increases in the NHS, because part of the reason that it has struggled for productivity in recent years is that it has not had the necessary investment, so doctors and nurses have not had the beds and capital expenditure that they need in their hospitals. I have been to Barnet hospital in my Chipping Barnet constituency and spoken to the chief executive of the trust. They were clear that what has happened nationally, and has filtered through to their hospital, is that capital spending budgets have been raided to fund day-to-day spending, and that has made it more difficult for the NHS to be productive. More beds and £3 billion for scanners and other capital equipment will make a difference to productivity in the NHS. [Interruption.] Conservative Members know that that is the case.
Let us just go back to the inheritance that the Labour Government face. We have high public debt, low productivity and wage growth. Our economy has also been hampered because the Conservative party has made it much more difficult for us to trade with our nearest neighbours. That has been bad for competition and productivity across the country. I could go on about the economic inheritance, but I do not wish to make hyperbolic statements or overdo it; we can just look at the facts presented to the Labour Government.
Bradley Thomas
When the Conservative Government headed by David Cameron were elected in 2010, the circumstances that they faced following Labour’s trashing of the economy meant that it took two and a half to three years to get the public on board. That stands in great contrast to what happened this summer, when Labour inherited good economic circumstances, with the economy growing and inflation down. In fact, has the electorate not been deceived?
Dan Tomlinson
The economy was not growing at a fast pace when we took over; we were growing slower than five other G7 countries in the quarter before the Conservative party lost power. That is the truth. Conservative Members can deny it if they want, and come up with a fancy way to analyse the economic statistics in order to claim that we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but in the final quarter before they lost office—and in 2023—we were growing slower than five other G7 countries. We were growing faster than other countries in 2022 only because we were recovering from the pandemic. They know that that is the case.
I fear that, in their stance today, Conservative Members are again covering themselves in the pong of the Liz Truss Administration. That Administration made the mistake of not making efforts to balance day-to-day public spending and tax increases. That is what caused interest rates to rise and the economy to be in much turmoil. The Labour Government are ensuring that increases in day-to-day spending are matched by increases in tax revenues—[Interruption.] I said increases in day-to-day spending are being matched by tax revenues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has already taken two interventions, and the clock will now continue to run for every subsequent intervention that he takes, just in case he was not aware of that and wants to take this intervention from Mr Hinds.
Dan Tomlinson
Maybe I will take further interventions when I speak in tomorrow’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that many Members still wish to speak.
In my final 13 seconds, let me conclude by saying that the risk for the Conservative party is that it forgets the importance of managing the public finances, which gives us the economic stability from which growth can come. By voting against the Government, Conservative Members will make that more difficult, and will signal that they do not wish to have economic stability and growth.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Bill represents a major breach of the promises made by the Government when they stood for election. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), was right: people should be cynical, and people are cynical about the way in which politics is sometimes conducted in this country. He talked about his amazement at the anger expressed from the Opposition Benches. I assure the House that, were the situation reversed—with the Conservative party on the Government Benches, introducing measures that the Office for Budget Responsibility, the IFS and everybody else said would hurt ordinary working people—Labour Members would be incandescent with rage.
That is the whole point. A promise was made: “We will not tax working people.” At the end of the day, when people have to pay for their goods, their shopping and so on, it really does not matter to them whether their income has been reduced as a result of direct taxation being taken out of their pay packets in the form of income tax, or whether it has been reduced indirectly by taking the money from their employer. In turn, as the IFS, the OBR and others have said, that will impact on real wages. As the IFS pointed out, it will especially impact the real wages of the lowest paid—that is the whole point. We can play with words, but the truth of the matter is that a tax increase has been imposed on employers, and the OBR says that in 76% of cases, the impact on wages will be felt by ordinary working people. That is a broken promise, no matter how we look at it.
The Government’s excuse has been that they will try to alleviate that impact. People have talked about different sectors so far in the debate, and I am not going to go through all of them, but let us just look at two examples. The first is small businesses. We are told that they can deal with the impact because they are geniuses. What will they do? They will increase productivity. Funnily enough, the public sector is to be protected—the Government are not looking for any increases in productivity there.
We are told that small businesses will find ways of decreasing their expenditure, but funnily enough, the Government are actually looking for ways of spending more money. They are spending £9 billion on a quango, Great British Energy. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero came back from COP29 and told us that the Government were now committed to giving £300 billion away to foreign Governments for climate change, but he would not even tell us how much the Government were going to pay out to those Governments. For the nationalisation of the railways, again, there is an open cheque book. We are told that there are no alternatives. Businesses have to find alternatives, but the Government happily spend the revenue that they are taking.
Then, of course, the social care sector and GPs are told, “Go to the NHS and renegotiate your contract.” The NHS does not have to pay the national insurance rise itself—it is exempt. Do we really believe that when the GPs and the social care sector go to the NHS and say, “We want to renegotiate our contracts,” the NHS is going to say, “Oh, you need money for national insurance? There you are—take it.” All the excuses have been given today: we are told that there is no money, but it can be spent on other things. We are told that the social care sector and GPs can renegotiate, and that the private sector will be inventive. Let us see some invention by the Government, rather than broken promises.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to share the concerns that my constituents and businesses in Chichester have raised with me since the announcement in the Chancellor’s Budget that employer’s national insurance contributions would be increased.
First, I would like to acknowledge the Labour Government’s inheritance from the previous Government, and recognise that tough decisions need to be made to rebuild public services, especially our health service. The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposed increase to employment allowance, but the blanket increase in the rate of secondary class 1 contributions across all sectors is going to make things harder for GPs, social care providers, charities and local authorities in my constituency and across the country. Those sectors have had a tough time for years, struggling with rising energy costs and higher interest rates, with thousands of care providers on the brink of bankruptcy, NHS dentists already delivering some NHS treatments at a financial loss, and charities already grappling with underfunded public sector contracts.
West Meads GP surgery is one of the smaller practices in Bersted in my constituency. It is looking at increased costs of at least £25,000, which will mean a reduction in staffing hours. The GP who wrote to me said:
“This is a first and will certainly impact on patient care if not addressed.”
The same can be said for Witterings Medical Centre, another practice that is already operating under extraordinary demand. The added costs will exacerbate strain in the system, because overstretched and under-resourced GPs will lead to an increase in hospital admissions, overwhelming NHS capacity at a time when it already cannot cope. The Government’s treatment of GPs as private entities excludes them from the employment allowance support, and if we do not fix the front and the back door of our national health service, the middle—our secondary care, our hospitals—will continue to bear the burden.
St Wilfrid’s hospice echoes these challenges, citing the inequity in exemptions being granted to NHS services, but not to charities providing similar health-related services. The hospice predicts a bill increase of £175,000. That would pay for four nurses, who could be out in the community providing care for the most vulnerable. The predicted national impact of this rise on the charitable sector is £1.4 billion. While I am on the topic of charities, I would like briefly to mention Stonepillow, a charity that supports individuals experiencing homelessness and with compound needs. It has seen a doubling of demand since 2018—it serves 1,000 clients annually—and it reports needing to find an additional £150,000 every year to continue offering its service.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care talked of moving the health model in this country from treatment to prevention and from hospital to community, but the increase in NICs directly undermines the ability to do that, if GPs have to reduce their services, if more dentists move further away from NHS contracts, if social care staff lose their jobs when their small and medium-sized care providers go bankrupt, and if community pharmacies, a key pillar in the NHS ecosystem, face spiralling debt and struggle to keep pace with operating costs.
In the interests of constructive opposition, I am not minded to bring problems without solutions. The Chancellor could have chosen to raise the money needed through the much fairer tax changes laid out in the Liberal Democrat manifesto during the general election, such as the reversal of the Conservative tax cuts for the big banks, doubling the rate of gaming duty paid by online gambling services or a fairer reform of capital gains tax. If I had more than 10 seconds left, I would give many other reasons why I am unfortunately unable to support this Bill on Second Reading.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
I start by reminding the House of a prescient analogy of Winston Churchill’s:
“For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
This national insurance increase and threshold cut is simply a tax on jobs in the private sector. It will result in less employment, fewer bonuses, smaller pay rises and higher prices—and for what? To fund a state that is out of control and shows no regard for taxpayers’ money. That is exemplified by the Department for Work and Pensions, which hands out money like confetti, without the requisite disciplines. The answer is to radically cut the size of the state and release the innate creativity of the British people. What we need is less state, less tax, less bureaucracy and more prosperity. Will the Government accept full responsibility for the suffering that this tax increase will inevitably cause to our working people?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On Saturday evening, I was lucky to attend Sussex Chorus’s performance of Handel’s “Messiah” at St Andrew’s church in Burgess Hill. There was a collection at the end for the St Peter and St James hospice, which looks after many people in Mid Sussex. As I put my donation in the bucket, the lady holding the bucket thanked me, and she told me that her husband had spent his last days at St Peter and St James. When she realised that I was the local MP, she grasped my hand tightly, and said, “You have to do something about NICs.” I said that I had been trying to, and had been raising the matter in the Houses of Parliament, but having not been heard so far, I will raise it again today.
Our hospices and social care providers do hugely difficult, often invisible work. They look after the weak, the vulnerable and the dying, but these organisations are themselves even more vulnerable than they were as a result of the Government’s proposed changes to employer national insurance contributions, announced in the Budget. That jobs tax jeopardises the quality and reach of the services that will be available in my constituency and across the country. The children’s hospice charity Together for Short Lives estimates that the rise from 13.8% to 15% in April 2025 that was announced in the Budget will increase costs for children’s hospices, which provide lifeline care to seriously ill children, by nearly £5 million annually. Combined with inflation, falling local NHS and council funding, and uncertainty around the NHS children’s hospice grant, this policy risks reducing or even closing essential services. In the social care sector, MHA, which supports more than 17,000 older people across 80 care homes, 59 retirement communities, and 43 community based hubs, estimates that it will face an additional £4.6 million in costs in the first year alone.
Alison Bennett
I would like to make progress. Around 18,000 private social care providers operate in the UK. We must help them to help those in need, and we cannot afford to put up more barriers for them. How can we expect those providers to survive if we impose higher taxes on them? This is not making the most of an opportunity for long-term positive change; I am sad to say that it is squandering it.
The Government could have found better ways to raise the necessary funds. They could have reversed tax cuts for big banks, increased digital services taxes, or even reformed capital gains tax to ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have repeatedly urged the Government to exempt social care providers and hospices from the tax rise, and I do so once again today. Let us do right by those who work tirelessly to support and protect our most vulnerable, and in doing so, let us build a healthcare system fit for the future.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Government Members have talked about difficult choices. Not taking away the winter fuel payment from people, or voting to remove the two-child cap, might also have been difficult choices, but instead they have been easy targets. This Bill adds to those easy targets.
The Bill, presented under the guise of fiscal responsibility, is a thinly veiled austerity measure that will disproportionately burden Scotland and undermine our ability to deliver vital services to our citizens. The increase in employer national insurance contributions is touted by the Government as a necessary step to bolster public finances. However, closer examination reveals the stark reality: the increase will lead to a significant shortfall in Scotland’s public sector funding. We will be left grappling with the fact that the UK Government undervalued the cost of the measure by at least £200 million.
Scottish Government figures, corroborated by independent analysis from reputable institutions such as the Fraser of Allander Institute, paint a grim picture. The national insurance hike will cost Scotland more than £500 million, including a staggering £191 million burden on our already stretched NHS. That figure rises to an alarming £750 million when we factor in indirect employees in sectors such as childcare, GP practices and social care—sectors vital to the fabric of our society.
In Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, a local firm with a number of care homes across the north of Scotland faces an £800,000 bill. It provides vital services to the community. To give another example, a local dentist has said that the increased cost of employment as a result of the Bill may force them to go private to recoup those costs. Finally, the Bill is a double whammy for GP practices. They face the national insurance hit, but by dint of being designated a public service, are not eligible for employment allowance.
The UK Government’s paltry offer of £300 million in Barnett consequentials is simply not enough to bridge the gap, and it fails to account for Scotland’s proportionally larger public sector, which employs 22% of the workforce, compared with 17% in the UK as a whole. Among other reasons, that is because in Scotland, we already have a publicly owned and managed rail service, and a publicly owned and managed water service. The funding disparity is a clear indication that the UK Government have given scant consideration to the unique needs and circumstances of Scotland. That includes the disregard demonstrated in the winter fuel payment debacle, which exposes a pattern of neglect, regardless of which party occupies the Government Benches. It is exactly this pattern of neglect and lack of understanding of Scotland by successive UK Governments that strengthens the case for Scottish independence, and for our ability to take decisions for ourselves, like every other normal country, on the delivery of public services and taxation that impacts us.
The impact of the Bill goes far beyond mere budgetary concerns. It will have a ripple effect across our economy, harming businesses, stifling growth and ultimately hurting the very workers it purports to protect. The Office for Budget Responsibility has cautioned that the increase will likely lead to lower wages and higher prices; effectively, the burden will be passed on to consumers, and the purchasing power of hard-working families will be eroded. We urge the UK Government to reconsider this damaging Bill, to fully fund the cost of this tax hike to public services in Scotland, and to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Scottish Government, so that Scotland’s interests are protected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have two remaining Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should consider making their way back to the Chamber before the wind-ups.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I rise to share my concerns about the unintended consequences of this tax hike on small businesses, GPs, social care providers and farm businesses. The arguments about the damage that the previous Government left are well rehearsed, and significant effort is needed to rebuild public services and repair public finances, but this measure will do just the opposite. As GPs and the vast majority of care providers are private, they will not benefit from the compensation that the Chancellor will give to the NHS and other public sector employers to cover the cost of this tax increase.
Langport surgery in my constituency told me that it faces an additional cost of £45,000 a year, due to the national insurance rise. It said:
“at a time when general practice is facing workforce shortages, higher costs could make it even harder to hire and retain staff, directly impacting patient access”
to good-quality care. The impact on social care providers could also be severe; six in 10 of the UK’s care home beds are provided by companies that could go bankrupt if they experience even a mild economic shock. I have been discussing these difficulties with Wincanton Cares, a support and advice group for people needing care in south-east Somerset. It is concerned that care home closures may well happen, as the funding model is so precarious.
I am also worried about the impact that the measure could have on small businesses, which are the foundation of the Government’s growth agenda. In advance of Small Business Saturday, I have spoken to many businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton, including Topline Glass based in Ilton. It described the Budget as a triple whammy of increased NICs, wage rises and business rate increases. The OBR has estimated that the increases to employer NICs will reduce potential output by 0.1%, while the costs to businesses will lead to lower wages and profits. The Government should have instead listened to Liberal Democrat calls to raise money through fairer tax changes, such as reversing the Conservative tax cuts handed to big banks, increasing the digital services tax to 6%, doubling the rate of remote gaming duty paid by online gambling companies, and fair reform of capital gains tax, so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals pay their fair share.
Many farming and agricultural businesses will also be hit by this tax rise. In addition, farming businesses will now be subject to increased NICs, further stretching their budgets. The CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network has stated that the increase in national insurance will be a big concern for businesses that rely on a large workforce to pick, process and package food. As farming yields very slim returns, those added costs will likely be passed on to consumers, pushing up food prices and disproportionately affecting those least able to afford high-quality, UK-produced food.
The likely increase in the cost of UK food would inevitably lead to a reliance on cheaper imports, particularly from countries with lower production and welfare standards, undermining UK farmers and potentially increasing climate-related harm elsewhere. Driving down food security and pushing up prices is damaging to national security. The Government have an opportunity to look again at these measures that damage British farming. If they will not, they will not be forgiven.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I have previously raised in the Chamber the impact that increased employer national insurance contributions will have on GPs, dentists, pharmacies and care providers in my constituency of Eastleigh. I have also been contacted by many owners of small businesses who are hugely concerned about the impact that changes to employer national insurance contributions will have on their businesses. That includes the early years sector, which plays a crucial role in supporting working families and the wider economy. Providers who operate on tight margins and with a limited ability to adjust income face unique challenges. For a sector that is already under immense financial pressure, this added burden feels short-sighted and risks undermining the stability of a service that families rely on so heavily.
Crestwood pre-school in my constituency serves local families by providing care and education for children aged two to five. As a charity-run pre-school, it is already stretched to its limits, despite huge fundraising efforts. Clare, the manager of Crestwood, wrote to me explaining how the increase in employer national insurance contributions will add tens of thousands of pounds to its annual costs. Those are funds that it simply does not have.
I have also heard from Forest Footsteps Childcare in Chandler’s Ford, another early years provider in my constituency. Erin, who opened the centre in 2022, is worried about how she will manage the extra costs. She calculated that the new national insurance plans for employers’ contributions along with the rise in the national minimum wage will cost her approximately £13,000 a year more. While she is showing remarkable resilience, she told me that some providers have been less fortunate and already closed their doors.
The YMCA Eastleigh nursery and community centre has also shared its concerns. It told me that the combined impact of these changes will cost the nursery and community centre an extra £95,000 a year. This is a problem being acutely felt across the whole sector.
These stories are not unique. Across the country, nurseries, pre-schools and childminders are warning that rising employer national insurance contributions coupled with inadequate Government funding will lead to higher fees for parents, reductions in staff pay and closures in those essential early years settings, which would not only harm working families but risk deepening the staffing crisis in the sector. What reassurance can the Minister give early years and childcare providers in Eastleigh and across the country that they will not be adversely affected?
Raising employer national insurance is a tax on jobs that will hurt small businesses and essential services. The Government must reconsider their approach. The early years sector, primary care and small businesses are not staffed by those with the broadest shoulders. This weekend we have Small Business Saturday, a chance to celebrate the incredible work of small businesses, who do so much for our communities. They need our support. The Government must think again and support working families. They must rethink this unhelpful policy.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I pay tribute to and thank all colleagues from both sides of the House for their contributions. I will try to touch on some of their points as I go through.
Just nine months ago, I opened the Second Reading of a Conservative national insurance Bill that cut taxes for millions of working people across the country. Today, we have before us a Labour national insurance Bill that will take the tax burden to the highest levels in history on the backs of working people. That is the stark difference that a Labour Government make, but it is not the change that people voted for.
Nine months ago, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told the House that the then Opposition supported our tax cut, but barely three hours later, she and her Labour colleagues remarkably failed to vote for it and back up their words with actions. Now we know why: it is Labour’s playbook to say one thing as loudly as possible and then do the exact opposite as quietly as it can.
Stuart Anderson
On the Government’s tax policy, does my hon. Friend think it is concerning that the Chancellor today refused to rule out further tax rises in future Budgets?
Gareth Davies
Absolutely. We all heard what the Chancellor said at the Confederation of British Industry conference. It is remarkable that the Prime Minister will not back up her words, and even more remarkable that the Chancellor herself would not back up her words today at Treasury questions.
The British people see the Bill for what it is: the biggest broken promise of them all, and there are plenty to choose from. It is a good job the Chancellor has experience on a complaints desk, because, quite frankly, there are quite a lot coming in at the moment—not least from the business community, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) highlighted so well in his speech. Before the election, the Chancellor embarked on what she referred to as the “smoked salmon offensive” with British business; now the election is over, she has dropped the smoked salmon and is focusing on just being offensive.
Today’s Bill will introduce tax rises on working people in business that were never declared before the election. It is a double whammy, as the Federation of Small Businesses has said in Lincolnshire: it introduces not just the rate rise, but a reduction in the threshold. This tax is the only major tax that is paid exclusively by working people. It is a £25 billion tax rise on jobs. The OBR makes it clear that by 2027, 76% of the total cost of this tax increase will be passed on to working people through lower wages and higher prices, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) said in what I thought was a very thoughtful speech for the SNP.
As I said at Treasury questions this morning, the OBR says this is a tax on working people; the IFS says this is a tax on working people; even the Resolution Foundation says this is a tax on working people. By anyone’s measure—be in no doubt—this is a manifesto breach the public will not forget. That is clear.
What is not so clear any more is what this Labour party stands for. The Budget was an attack not just on working people, but on the very lowest paid working people, according to the IFS. This is a fundamentally regressive policy, leaving many out in the cold and giving businesses no choice but to freeze hiring and freeze wages. It will hit others, too. It will hit the doctors and the nurses working in general practice and social care, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set out in his speech. It will hit charities and voluntary organisations, with Marie Curie expecting that it will cost the charity £3 million next year alone—all part of a £1.4 billion bombshell to hit all charities next year. It will hit hospices, homeless support groups and disability charities, which are all warning they face reducing headcount and limiting services. This is not what the British people voted for.
Dave Doogan
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as many of my colleagues are, that the Government will not give the full details on compensation for the non-core public sector activities that are the lifeblood of the NHS because, if they gave them the compensation that they need, the net benefit from the tax would be so risibly small as to demonstrate that it is utterly pointless and a concoction that could come only from a dysfunctional Treasury like this one?
Gareth Davies
There is really nothing to add to that. The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech and at Treasury questions—it is a very important point.
In just six months, we have hit the highest tax burden in history. Debt is up, with debt interest payments above £100 billion—for the first time ever—in every year of the forecast. Today’s Bill will result in lower wages, higher prices and a tougher employment market. I urge this Government to reverse course, but I will not hold my breath. Instead, I think I can predict what the Minister is going to say. She is going to say three things when she stands up to speak. First, she is going to try to blame the Conservative party—blaming everybody else for this clear political choice. She will not explain the £8 billion on GB Energy—an energy company that will not actually reduce bills or produce any energy—or the £10 billion on public pay splurges that come with no reform on productivity, or £7 billion on rebranding the national infrastructure bank. Perhaps if the Government dropped those pet projects—which will not actually grow the economy—they would have a little more money and would not have to screw with small businesses and make people unemployed.
Secondly, the Minister will forget that she is in government and that I am in opposition. She will ask me what my party would do instead. To that, I simply say that we would fund the NHS well, but we would also reform it.
Dan Tomlinson
Would the shadow Minister increase borrowing or increase a different tax, or are there some public spending cuts that he would like to announce?
Gareth Davies
I hope the British people are listening to this: none of those things. I remind the hon. Gentleman, although he was not here, that NHS spending increased by 45% in cash terms in the last Parliament under a Conservative Government. The issue is not spending—the Labour party will never get this—but reforming the NHS, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said. It is about growing our economy faster than the Labour party would grow it, according to the OBR, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said. We would tackle the welfare bill—£12 billion of savings that we set out in government—and we would boost productivity, because if public sector productivity returned to pre-pandemic levels, £20 billion would be saved.
Finally, the Minister will try to suggest that she is bringing stability, even though businesses and consumer confidence have plummeted ever since she and her colleagues took office. Let us remind ourselves of what she means by stability. In just a few months, we have seen a Downing Street chief of staff sacked, a Cabinet Minister resign, a Back-Bench MP quit the party, key manifesto promises like cutting energy bills by £300 completely dropped, a delayed spending review, fiddled fiscal rules and, just this week, complete confusion about whether the Prime Minister will drop his economic growth pledge. It is all so predictable, yet so damaging to our economy. The Bill breaks Labour’s manifesto. We cannot back it. We will not vote for it. We urge the Government to think again
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
It is an honour to close the debate on behalf of the Government. When the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) loses his seat, he can work as my speechwriter, because he is right that I am going to say all the things he said, but I will come on to that soon.
Let me start by thanking hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. There were some powerful speeches, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). .
Before I come to the specific points raised in this debate, I want to reiterate the purpose of the Bill. Our priority in the Bill is to restore stability to our economy, repair the public finances to fix our economy, and support long-term economic growth. The Chancellor recognised that to do that, the Government needed to make difficult decisions. That is why under the measures in the Bill, employers are being asked to contribute more. First, the Bill provides for a rise in the rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%. Secondly, it provides for a decrease in the secondary threshold for employers from £9,000 per employee to £5,000. Thirdly, it provides for changes to the employment allowance, to increase it from £5,000 to £10,500, and removes the £100,000 eligibility cap, so that the vast majority of employers benefit.
The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked at the start of the debate where the extra money raised will go. Let me remind him that the Government uncovered a challenging fiscal and spending inheritance with £22 million of in-year pressure on public finances. We have taken difficult but necessary decisions to fix the foundations of our economy and to fix public services. The Budget provided additional day-to-day funding to stabilise and support public services. Day-to-day funding will now grow at an average of 3.3% in real terms over this year and next, compared to 0.2% under the last Government’s plans.
Dave Doogan
A £200 million black hole in the Scottish Government’s core finances, rising to £450 million when partner agencies are included—what kind of stability does the Minister think that will bring to public services in Scotland?
Tulip Siddiq
If the hon. Gentleman is patient and listens carefully to my speech, I will come on to the Scottish Government, so he does not need to worry.
The increase in employment NICs raises revenues for the NHS and increases funding for contributory benefits such as the state pension, easing wider pressures on public finances. It is part of the Government’s announcement of an additional £22.6 billion of day-to-day spending over two years for the Department of Health and Social Care, including the NHS.
Bradley Thomas
Can the Minister tell the House which decision was harder, giving an inflation-busting pay rise to union paymasters or cutting the winter fuel payment?
Tulip Siddiq
The best decision that we have ever made in government is putting money back into the pockets of working people.
Questions were raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the NHS. The Government will provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional ER NICs costs only. That will apply to central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers—GPs, dentists, pharmacies and eyecare provider—are valued independent contractors who provide nearly £20 billion worth of NHS services. Every year we consult each sector both about what services they provide and about the money to which providers are entitled in return under their contracts. As in previous years, this issue will be dealt with as part of that process.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my earlier questions. Rather than taking with one hand and giving back with the other, would the Minister support moves to exempt all health and care providers?
Tulip Siddiq
The Department of Health and Social Care will confirm funding for general practice for 2025-26 as part of the usual GP contract process later in the year, through consultation with the sector. I understand the concerns about the impact on the healthcare sector, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the Department of Health will continue to engage with GPs, dentists and pharmacists as part of the usual contract process, and that changes in NICs will be taken into account in those discussions.
Let me now turn to the rant, I would say, rather than speech, from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). I was not quite sure what question he was getting to, but he did ask very clearly whether the Chancellor understood the impact of the economic policies that she was making, and whether she would remain in her place. Considering those questions, I wondered what he thought about economics as a whole, so I decided to look into him. Not long ago, he said:
“I have worked with Liz Truss on many occasions…I believe that her economic position…and her parliamentary experience make her the best option to lead our country.”
Stuart Anderson
I stand by the comments that I made. [Interruption.] I do. I fundamentally believe that Liz Truss would be a better Prime Minister than the one we have now.
Tulip Siddiq
If you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that a lettuce would have better judgment.
I turn to the devolved Governments. The Government will provide Departments and other public sector employers with support for additional ER NICs costs only. The funding will be allocated to Departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way. The overall outcome of the Barnett formula is that all the devolved Governments will receive at least 20% more funding per person than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. The Scottish Government will receive £47.7 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £3.4 billion through the operation of the Barnett formula. The Welsh Government will receive £21 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £1.7 billion through the operation of the Barnett formula.
Dave Doogan
The Minister is being very generous in taking a second intervention from me. I realise that the bar for credibility in the Treasury is very low right now, but she hoots and toots about the level of the block grant for the Scottish Government. In what universe does the block grant go down year on year? Of course it is higher than in previous years. Has she got the faintest idea how it works?
Tulip Siddiq
I do have the faintest idea how it works, which is why I am on this side of the House and the hon. Gentleman is on that side. That is why I am a Treasury Minister and he is not, and probably never will be.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke about hospitality. Without any Government intervention, retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely in April 2025, creating a cliff edge for business. [Interruption.] I know the truth hurts, which is why the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. Our Government have decided to offer a 40% discount to RHL properties by introducing a cash cap of £110,000 per business in 2025-26, and we have frozen the small business multiplier. This package is worth over £1.6 billion in 2025-26 and is aimed at supporting the most vulnerable businesses, ensuring that over 250,000 RHL properties receive the full 40% support.
Graham Stuart
I thank the Minister for giving way. The OBR had to issue a correction to table 3.2 in chapter 3 of its report. Originally, there was RDEL compensation for public sector employees and for adult social care. The correction was made to reduce the sums by £800 million, typically per year, for RDEL compensation just for public sector organisations. Why did the correction need to be made, when was it made, and why was the OBR told so late that social care was not getting the support that it clearly needs?
Tulip Siddiq
As far as I am concerned, the current numbers are the correct ones.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Minister mentions business rates and the small business multiplier. Will she confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?
Tulip Siddiq
That is under review, and we will come back to the hon. Gentleman soon.
I turn to the questions from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) about childcare providers. She may be aware that I served on the shadow Education team for a long time. I realise the value of early years providers, and I know that they drive economic growth and break down barriers to opportunity. We have committed to making childcare more affordable and more accessible, which is why we promised in our manifesto to deliver the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents, and to open 3,000 new or expanded nurseries by upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. However, I say to the hon. Member that the Government inherited the worst economic circumstances since the second world war, and our first step must be to fix the foundations of our economy. In spite of the challenges, the Chancellor announced in her Budget significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places, meaning that the total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to respond to the questions that have been raised today. I also want to thank my officials for their work on bringing the Bill to the House. Before I finish, however, I want to answer a question that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) asked in his speech: what is the mission of this Government? Well, let me tell him. This Government’s mission is economic stability, restoring our public services, a thriving workplace, making sure that we have a strong education system and strong public services, putting more money in working people’s pockets, and fixing the foundations of our economy. The mission is to rebuild Britain. The Conservatives left a mess, and we will do a better job than them. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Tuesday 17th December 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
17:55 - divided: - Ayes: 100 / Noes: 351 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:09 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 206 / Noes: 353 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:22 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 352 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:37 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 353 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 354 / Noes: 202 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Rate of secondary Class 1 contributions
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert—
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”
(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—
“(1B) A “specified employer” means—
(a) a person providing a care home service or a domiciliary support service who is regulated under—
(i) Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008,
(ii) Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, or
(iii) Part 5 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010,
(b) a person contracted to provide primary care under the provisions of—
(i) Part 4 of the National Health Service Act 2006,
(ii) Part 4 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, or
(iii) sections 17J to 17O of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,
(c) a person contracted to provide general dental services under the provisions of Part 2 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992,
(d) a person contracted to provide pharmacy services under the provisions of—
(i) Part 7 of the National Health Service Act 2006, or
(ii) Part 8 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013, or
(e) a charitable provider of health and care, or
(f) a person providing hospice care whether in a hospice or elsewhere.
(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””
This amendment, together with Amendment 2 provides that care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commissioned dentists, NHS commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care, and those providing hospice care would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert—
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(A2) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(ab) if section 9AA below applies to the earnings, the reduced secondary percentage;”
(A3) After section 9A insert—
“9AA Qualification for reduced secondary percentage
(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) above, this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is employed—
(a) by a charity registered in the charity register or the Scottish charity register,
(b) by a voluntary organisation within the meaning of regulation 2 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006,
(c) to work in a GP practice,
(d) by a university, or
(e) by a college of further education.
(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab) above, the reduced secondary percentage is 13.8%.””
Amendment 7, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert—
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(A2) In section 9(1A) before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) if subsection (1B) below applies, the healthcare and small charities secondary percentage;”
(A3) After section 9(1A) insert—
“(1B) This section applies where the earner is employed to work—
(a) in any of the following settings—
(i) a GP surgery,
(ii) an optometry or dispensing optician practice,
(iii) a dental surgery,
(iv) a pharmacy,
(v) a residential care setting, or
(b) for a registered charity employing 50 people or fewer.
(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1A)(za) the healthcare and small charities secondary percentage is 13.8%.””
Amendment 13, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert—
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(A2) In section 9(1A) before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(za) if sub section (1B) below applies to the earnings, the specified sector secondary percentage;’
(A3) After section 9(1A) insert—
‘(1B) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) above, this subsection applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is employed in any of the following specified sectors—
(a) adult social care,
(b) hospices,
(c) primary care,
(d) nurseries registered in the Early Years Register maintained by the Office of Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, or
(e) a charity registered in the charity register or the Scottish charity register.
(1C) For the purposes of this Act above, the specified sector secondary percentage is 13.8%.’”
This amendment would provide that adult social care, hospice, primary care, nurseries and charities would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
Amendment 19, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert—
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”
(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—
“(1B) A “specified employer” means—
(a) a provider of education or childcare to children under five years of age—
(i) registered in England in the early years register maintained by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills,
(ii) registered in Wales with Care Inspectorate Wales, or
(iii) registered in Scotland with the Scottish Care Inspectorate; or
(b) a university.
(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””
This amendment provides that Early Years Settings and Universities would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
Amendment 20, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert—
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”
(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—
“(1B) A “specified employer” means—
(a) a registered charity, or
(b) a housing association.
(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””
This amendment provides that charities and housing associations would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
Amendment 23, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert—
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(A2) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(ab) if section 9AA below applies to the earnings, the veterans secondary percentage;”
(A3) After section 9A insert—
“9AA Veterans secondary percentage
(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) above, this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a veteran.
(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(a) above, the veterans secondary percentage is 13.8%.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a “veteran” means a former member of any of His Majesty’s forces.””
This amendment would exempt veterans' salaries from NICs changes.
Amendment 10, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(1B) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(ab) where the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”
(1C) After section 9(1A) insert—
“(1B) A “specified employer” means—
(a) a person providing a care home service or domiciliary support service regulated under the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, or
(b) a person providing primary medical services through contractual arrangements with a Health and Social Services Board,
(c) a person providing general dental services under Part 2 of the General Dental Services (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1993,
(d) a person providing pharmaceutical services under Part 2 of the Pharmaceutical Services Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997,
(e) a provider of health and care registered as a charity by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland,
(f) a person providing hospice care whether in a hospice or elsewhere,
(g) a voluntary or community organisation, and
(h) a provider of childcare registered in the Family Support NI Register.
(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.”
(1D) After subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations define a voluntary or community organisation for the purposes of subsection (1B)(g).””
This amendment aims to provide that in Northern Ireland care homes, domiciliary care providers, GP and dental surgeries, pharmacists, health and care charities, hospice care providers, voluntary or community organisations and childcare providers would remain subject to the current secondary Class 1 contribution rate, not the increased rate proposed in the Bill.
Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(1B) In section 9(1A) before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) if sub section (1B) below applies to the earnings, the specified sector secondary percentage;”
(1C) After section 9(1A) insert—
“(1B) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) above, this subsection applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is employed in any of the following specified sectors—
(a) adult social care,
(b) hospices,
(c) primary care,
(d) nurseries registered with Family Support NI, or
(e) a registered charity in Northern Ireland.
(1C) For the purposes of this Act above, the specified sector secondary percentage is 13.8%.””
This amendment would provide that adult social care, hospice, primary care, nurseries and charities in Northern Ireland would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert—
“(i) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £175, and
(ii) in all other cases, £96.”
This amendment, and Amendment 3, exempts care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commissioned dentists, NHS commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care, and those providing hospice care from the changes to the threshold.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert—
“(i) in respect of an earner listed in section 9AA(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £175, and
(ii) in all other cases, £96.”
Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert—
“(i) in respect of an earner to whom the healthcare and small charities secondary percentage under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 applies, £175, and
(ii) in all other cases, £96.”
Amendment 11, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert—
“(i) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, £175, and
(ii) in all other cases, £96.”
This amendment provides that the employers listed in Amendment 10 would be subject to the existing secondary threshold for secondary Class 1 contributions, not the lower threshold proposed in the Bill.
Amendment 14, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert—
“(i) in respect of an earner in a specified sector under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £175, and
(ii) in all other cases, £96.”
This amendment would exempt adult social care, hospice, primary care providers, nurseries and charities from changes to the threshold.
Amendment 17, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert—
“(i) in respect of an earner in a specified sector under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, £175, and
(ii) in all other cases, £96.”
This amendment would exempt adult social care, hospice, primary care providers, nurseries and charities in Northern Ireland from changes to the threshold.
Amendment 24, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert—
“(i) where the earner is a veteran within the meaning of section 9AA(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £175, and
(ii) in all other cases, £96.”
See Amendment 23.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “£758” substitute—
“(i) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £758, and
(ii) in all other cases, £417”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “£9,100” substitute—
“(i) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, £9,100, and
(ii) in all other cases £5,000.””
This amendment is linked to Amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “£758” substitute—
“(i) in respect of an earner listed in section 9AA(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £758, and
(ii) in all other cases, £417”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “£9,100” substitute—
“(i) in respect of an earner listed in section 9AA(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £9,100, and
(ii) in all other cases £5,000.””
Amendment 9, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “£758” substitute—
“(i) in respect of an earner to whom the healthcare and small charities secondary percentage under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 applies, £758, and
(ii) in all other cases, £417”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “£9,100” substitute—
“(i) in respect of an earner to whom the healthcare and small charities secondary percentage under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 applies, £9,100, and
(ii) in all other cases £5,000.””
Amendment 12, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “£758” substitute—
“(i) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, £758, and
(ii) in all other cases, £417”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “£9,100” substitute—
“(i) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, £9,100, and
(ii) in all other cases £5,000.””
This amendment makes provision for the monthly and annual thresholds in line with Amendment 11.
Amendment 15, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “£758” substitute—
“(i) in respect of an earner in a specified sector under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £758, and
(ii) in all other cases, £417”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “£9,100” substitute—
“(i) in respect of an earner under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £9,100, and
(ii) in all other cases £5,000.””
This amendment would exempt adult social care, hospice, primary care providers, nurseries and charities from changes to the threshold.
Amendment 18, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “£758” substitute—
“(i) in respect of an earner in a specified sector under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, £758, and
(ii) in all other cases, £417”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “£9,100” substitute—
“(i) in respect of an earner under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, £9,100, and
(ii) in all other cases £5,000.””
This amendment would exempt adult social care, hospice, primary care providers, nurseries and charities in Northern Ireland from changes to the threshold.
Amendment 25, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “£758” substitute—
“(i) where the earner is a veteran within the meaning of section 9AA(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £758, and
(ii) in all other cases, £417”, and”
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “£9,100” substitute—
“(i) where the earner is a veteran within the meaning of section 9AA(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £9,100, and
(ii) in all other cases £5,000.””
See Amendment 23.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.
New clause 1—Review of the impact of the Act—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within a year of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by this Act on—
(a) rates of employment,
(b) real wages,
(c) inflation, and
(d) real household disposable income.”
New clause 2—Review of effect on SMEs, hospitality, tourism and seasonal workers—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act.
(2) The review must consider in particular—
(a) the impact of those measures on the finances and staffing of small and medium sized businesses;
(b) the impact of those measures on the finances and staffing of small and medium sized businesses in the hospitality and tourism sector;
(c) the impact of those measures on sectors who rely on seasonal workers.
(3) In this section, “small and medium sized businesses” means any business which has an average headcount of staff of less than 250 in the tax year 2023-24.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the Act on SMEs, Hospitality, Tourism and Seasonal workers and on the sectors relying on seasonal workers.
New clause 3—Review of effect of employer NIC threshold—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on part-time workers.
(2) The review must consider in particular the effect of the threshold set by section 2 of this Act on part-time workers—
(a) earning £5,000 - £9,000, or
(b) working under 16 hours per week.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report into the impact of the employer NIC threshold on part-time staff, especially those who are lower paid or working less than 16 hours a week.
New clause 4—Employment allowance: review of exception on childcare service providers—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct a review of how the exception from the employment allowance under section 2 of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”) affects providers of childcare services.
(2) The review must consider the likely impact on providers of childcare services were section 2 of the 2014 Act to be amended to enable such providers to qualify for the allowance.
(3) A report setting out the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”
Pippa Heylings
These hikes in employer national insurance contributions are not just numbers on a spreadsheet, but will have real and damaging consequences and will strike at the heart of small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. In my constituency in South Cambridgeshire, we have one of the highest densities of small and medium-sized enterprises, principally in the biotech and life sciences sector, which is a growth area for our economy. It is critical that we get this right, and I have heard from the sector that it is troubled by this legislation.
More worryingly, the consequences will extend to our social and healthcare sectors, which are already under immense strain. GP surgeries and care homes across the UK are at risk of being severely impacted. Those are essential frontline services, which are essential to supporting the NHS and to fulfilling this Government’s mission of moving from treatment to prevention, and from hospital to community.
How can we expect to tackle the backlog in routine operations, and how can we deal with the winter waiting lists at accident and emergency, and with so much pain and anguish, if the primary care providers that form the foundation of our healthcare system are being undermined by this tax increase?
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to speak briefly. She references primary care. I have heard from five different GP surgeries in my constituency, who have written to me to warn that the national insurance increase will directly undermine patient care, when GP practices are already under severe financial strain due to years of neglect. Does she agree that the Government’s process of addressing national insurance costs via GP contract negotiations is just too slow? It could go on until spring, but practices are making staffing decisions right now.
Pippa Heylings
I agree. What the hon. Member says is critical, and I will come on to the situation with our GPs. The Lib Dems continue to highlight the point that to fix the NHS, we have to fix the social care crisis. Freeing up hospital beds requires us to fix the social care sector. According to research, 60% of the UK’s care home beds are provided by private companies, which are on the brink of bankruptcy and are being tipped over the edge thanks to these changes and rises in employers’ national insurance contributions. We do not understand how that can align with the plans of the Chancellor and the Health Secretary to alleviate pressure on hospitals and ensure effective healthcare delivery.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. The Labour Government say that they want to deal with this situation, and that they effectively protected secondary care, but the NI applies to GPs at the front end and care homes at the back end. That means that it will be the hospitals who hold the responsibility—the acute places that we need to keep clear if we are to help the backlog move through. Without getting an answer now, we risk recruitment decisions being kept on hold over the next three or four months and cutbacks being made. Does the hon. Member agree that, on top of the difficulties of an already hard winter, that will cripple the NHS?
Pippa Heylings
I agree with the hon. Member. I will give one example: the Arthur Rank hospice, which serves all of Cambridgeshire. I had a tour there and saw the work being done by its dedicated professionals. I was informed by its senior leadership that these hikes in national insurance contributions for employers will be the equivalent of £230,000 in additional payroll costs on top of the fundraising that it already has to do. That is money that it does not have. We know from the debate on assisted dying, assisted suicide and the terminally ill how critical palliative care and end-of-life care is. That is one hospice that will struggle severely to deal with these charges.
Hon. Members have spoken about the GP crisis. According to the British Medical Association, 1,387 GP practices have closed since 2015 and the NHS has lost the equivalent of 1,333 full-time, fully qualified GPs. Each GP is responsible for an average of 2,294 patients, and about 3 million people have been directly affected in the last decade by shrinking GP numbers. At a time when we desperately need more GPs, we are introducing a tax that risks driving even more practices out of business. It is not just me saying that; I am sure that hon. Members across the House will have heard from GPs in their constituencies.
In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, I have heard from the Harston, Comberton, Queen Edith, Eversden and Melbourn practices. I have spoken in particular to Dr Gee of Harston surgery, who has told me that his practice with 7,600 patients faces a £20,000 bill from April just to maintain its current services—just to stand still.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making a tremendously informed speech and demonstrating a level of understanding of primary care and the care sector that we could only dream of from the Government. Is it her concern that many charities, voluntary sector organisations and GP surgeries are already operating on the thinnest margins of financial sustainability and that this measure will torpedo the very organisations that protect our communities from absolute chaos? Secondary care cannot do it alone; it is upheld by primary care and the care sector. Is she as concerned as many other hon. Members that this will cause absolute chaos?
Pippa Heylings
I agree with the hon. Member. I know that the Government are in conversation with GPs, but GPs are writing to us saying that they are seriously concerned.
The GP in Harston said:
“GPs cannot raise prices or operate at a loss.”
They have not had clarification or confirmation from the Government about how funding that is to be given to others in the public sector will be available to them. Just at the critical time when GPs are coming to their annual spending reviews and budgeting, the Government are bringing them this uncertainty. GPs do not feel that they are getting the right messaging or any kind of clarity that will save people’s jobs.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way; she has been generous with her time. Does she realise that this is not just a problem in England, Scotland and Wales? It is a significant problem in Northern Ireland, where we have already seen a high number of GP practices returning their contracts. At this time when the solution was meant to be to move to multidisciplinary teams, the increase in national insurance contributions for GPs as employers is putting additional stress on their contracts, given the amount of money they are receiving from central Government. In Northern Ireland, 75% of our domiciliary care and home care is provided by private suppliers, and this additional cost will be added to them as well.
Pippa Heylings
I agree with the hon. Member. In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, we had the tragic situation of four much-loved, much-respected family doctors handing back their contracts. It happened at East Barnwell surgery, to the distress of those GPs and all their patients. That is because of the contract, and due to failures by the previous Conservative Government to understand in the GP funding formula what deprivation as well as age demographics mean in that contract. On top of that, the hikes in employer national insurance contributions have driven them over the edge.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We had this great debate on assisted dying where every single person who spoke said it was essential that we improve palliative care. I wonder whether we could form a consensus in this Committee. One compromise that the Government could make is to take hospices out of this tax. That would be so popular, achieve so much and ensure that our elderly and frail people were properly looked after. I give that one compromise to the Government.
Pippa Heylings
I thank the right hon. Member. As I mentioned, Arthur Rank hospice in my constituency is one such hospice that should definitely have that compromise. Not only that; we have to look at the whole primary care sector—both GPs and independent care homes—because that is what will winter-proof our NHS. We cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care.
The national insurance increases are not just unwise; they are unthinkable. We are in a time of healthcare crisis when people are already struggling to secure appointments. Despite the Government’s assurances, these tax rises will inevitably affect ordinary people. They will particularly hurt those desperately trying to access their local GP and crucial appointments.
We cannot and will not fix the NHS by driving its primary care providers into the ground. I urge the Government to engage with our GPs, reconsider and provide immediate reassurance to GP practices, hospices and care homes that they will be protected them from these changes. Without those frontline services, the NHS stands no chance of coming off life support.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I rise to speak about the need for the Bill and the continued assault by the Conservative party on public trust and the public finances. When I go out in my constituency, I speak to people who are appreciative of the “bin fire”—that is the term that one of my constituents used—facing Treasury colleagues when we assumed office. Money for projects and half-baked plans was used more to launder the Conservative party’s reputation than to improve our public services.
When someone comes into office and finds out that the job is not as had been advertised and that the previous person in post set fire to the office, they have to do things differently. They have to begin to rebuild trust with the people they serve and to have honest conversations with the public. That is what the Government are determined to doing. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can chunter as much as they like, but they know that they gambled with public trust and undermined every aspect of themselves and the institutions of the British state. That is not just a failure on their part but a failure on the part of everyone in their party and everyone who knocked on doors. Ultimately, they were judged harshly by the British public for that.
The Bill is necessary to repair the public finances and rebuild public trust. We did not want to do this. We had to maintain our manifesto promise not to see tax rises for working people, but we must ensure that the country that we hand on is in a significantly better state than the country we inherited. That is the Government’s task.
Dr Luke Evans
I am enjoying the hon. Member’s exposition of his thinking on this matter. Will he set out how this works for national insurance contributions, which is what we are talking about? Those on the frontline—the likes of GPs and care homes—are private, but they are commissioned only by the NHS. Is he aware of where the funding will come from? Will it come from the £22.6 billion? That would make sense, but if so, the Government need to clarify where that money is going. Part of the problem is that it does not add up for the Government to say that they want to support the NHS yet tax those very people—the doctors, the hospices and the care homes—to fund it. Will he elaborate on how that will work?
Joe Morris
I was not sure if the hon. Member would take interventions during that. Ultimately, we need to support the NHS, our care homes and our GPs. It is very rich of the Conservative party to lecture us on supporting GPs and care homes. I have been out speaking to GPs in rural communities, who have been consistently undermined by the Conservatives’ failure to appreciate the challenges facing the modern countryside. I have been out speaking to care homes; I spoke to the Charlotte Straker care home, which looked after my grandmother, to hear its concerns. I have had those meetings, as is my duty as a constituency MP. Ultimately, perhaps if more of the hon. Gentleman’s Conservative colleagues had done the diligent thing as constituency MPs, there would be more of them on the Opposition Benches.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Member is very kind to give way. Twice in the past couple of minutes, he has used the word “ultimately”—“Ultimately we will have to do this, and ultimately we will have to do that.” It is “actually” that he should be saying. You actually have to make sure that there is funding, not ultimately—that can wait for another day. Actually is what will happen as soon as this legislation comes to pass—you will be in an absolute quagmire.
Joe Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his guidance on the correct form of words to use. The reason that I used the term “ultimately” is that it is the fundamental goal of Government to improve the lives of our constituents. That is why I choose to use the form of words that I am using, and why I am focused on the eventual outcome for my constituents. As I said, we did not want to inherit the country in the circumstances that we did. That is fault of the Conservative party, its record and the inheritance it left. We need to bear in mind the context, because that shapes everything and how we go about this.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), we hear the hon. Gentleman’s critique of the previous Government, but we are trying to understand how imposing these costs on GPs at one end of the service and hospices at the other will remotely help the NHS and, more importantly, the people who rely on it. We would like him to explain that, not just slag us off, however much he might enjoy doing so.
Joe Morris
I have never turned down an opportunity to slag off the Opposition. I am always happy to do so.
The ultimate reason that the Budget was necessary was to raise the extra money to invest into the NHS. The extra infrastructure investment will support our rural communities, our rural GPs and our care homes. That is the fundamental point of the Budget. It is a reset moment to properly support our public sector once more, which the Conservative party failed to do, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. We need to restore faith in our NHS and our small businesses that were so badly let down. I have spoken to many across my constituency who share my optimism about this Government and who are convinced of the need for that investment. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can chunter all they like, but it is true. Ultimately, those businesses know that we need to invest in the state in order to drive up standards and confidence and provide the stability that the country so desperately needs.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman mentions public trust; we all understand how important it is to restore that, but how can that happen if the very things needed to support the public and restore trust—our hospices and the charitable sector—are being hit by this Government’s measures?
Joe Morris
As the hon. Lady well knows, when one inherits a difficult context, one has to take decisions that one did not want to take. The public understand that the NICs rise was important and was needed because of the circumstances that we inherited and to repair the black hole that we found in the public finances. Spending the national overdraft three times and not telling anyone about it is what has fundamentally undermined public trust.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Listening to Members speaking to the amendments has caused me to reflect on the challenges at the heart of this debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments that are trying to unpick a holistic approach to fixing the foundations of our public finances entirely miss the point, first of the challenge that this Government face in re-establishing confidence in public finances, and secondly of our approach to long-term investment in public services that are so desperately needed? I believe that all the amendments—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Lady has every opportunity to contribute to this debate if she so wishes. Interventions are getting longer and longer; they must be shorter.
Joe Morris
My hon. Friend eloquently makes the point that I have been trying to make when I have tripped over my words.
I am extremely proud that the Government are committed to achieving economic stability, being frank with the public about the choices that we face and not simply taking the easy options. We need to implement these tough measures in order to resolve the previous Government’s disastrous economic mismanagement and to restore our foundations. I will finish by saying that traditionally, as far as I am aware, it is poor form for the arsonist to criticise the actions of the fire brigade.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I rise to speak, on behalf of the official Opposition, to amendments 13 to 18 and new clause 1, which stand in my name.
First, it is important to remember the context of the situation we find ourselves in today. Throughout the election, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister promised the British people that they would not raise taxes on working people. They committed specifically to not raising national insurance, but here we are in Committee debating a national insurance tax on working people worth some £25 billion. Each and every Government Member made specific promises to their constituents on national insurance, which they have now broken. We have it here in black and white.
Clause 1 raises the rate of secondary class national insurance from 13.8% to 15%. To compound the impact, clause 2 drastically cuts the secondary threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. This two-pronged attack on business means that while clause 1 squeezes more from businesses, clause 2 simultaneously pushes more businesses into the taxman’s grasp. Taken together, based on data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a staggering 940,000 employers are set to lose out in net terms from the Bill. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that each one will be hit by an average of £26,000 in additional tax.
On Second Reading we heard the same old script from the Government and their Back Benchers. Time and again we hear that the Bill will hurt only the largest businesses, but that is not correct. Most high street hair salons would not say that they are a big business with mounds of profit to give away to the Exchequer, no matter how much hair mousse this Prime Minister buys from them. A village family butcher surely would not regard themselves as profiteering fat cats. Community pharmacies providing vital services to residents young and old surely cannot be put in the same category as a large multinational pharmaceuticals company. Yet they are.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent argument against increasing the employer’s part of national insurance contributions. Yet he himself voted for the health and social care levy, which was an increase of greater proportion on both employees and employers. I have just checked Hansard—he made none of the arguments that he progresses today when his Government were putting that through. Why has his mind been changed now that he is in opposition?
Gareth Davies
I find it difficult that the Labour party says that we are irresponsible with public finances, yet when we faced a once-in-a-century pandemic and spent £400 billion or £500 billion to support residents, business and families in Stoke and across the country, we decided that we needed to pay that money back and did not want debt to keep on rising. Yes, we made difficult decisions in the face of a global pandemic. There is no global pandemic today. This is a political choice, and that is the difference.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is very kind in giving way again so quickly. The point has been made about the billions of pounds that were spent during the pandemic. Can he outline how much of that money went to Tory party mates and donors through dodgy contracts?
Gareth Davies
The hon. Gentleman was not here at that time, but those of us who were in Parliament then faced an incredibly challenging time in very difficult circumstances. Billions of pounds went to support businesses in his constituency; if he has a conversation with the average business that benefited from the furlough scheme, I am sure he will correct the record.
The problem is that socialists fundamentally do not understand or care what it means to have an idea, to take a risk or to work hard day in, day out to make a business a reality. That is the problem. They think it is all so easy—that profits just flow in. They think it will all be all right, because Government can step in and take us much tax as they want. That is not the case. If Government Members talk to the average business in their constituencies, they will find this out; if they set up a business, they will see it for themselves.
Perhaps most worrying of all, not only do the Government not understand the private sector, but they have completely overlooked the different ways in which the public sector provides for our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) set out. Whether healthcare, childcare or the charity sector, organisation after organisation has warned Ministers that this tax rise will impact the services they provide. That may not have been intended, but the Government have yet to act. That is why we have tabled amendments 13 to 15 and 16 to 18, which seek to protect certain key sectors from both parts of this tax in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head, and the Treasury really needs to answer this question. Did it knowingly implement these tax rises on these industries, which would be a travesty in itself, or did it do so by mistake because it does not understand these issues? If that is the case, will the Government look to rectify the matter so that hospices, GPs and childcare providers are protected?
Gareth Davies
I could not have put it better myself. These amendments highlight the fact that Labour’s attempt to paint this tax rise as a necessity for public services is nothing but plain politics; Labour has always intended to do this, and now it is hiding behind public services to justify it.
Those working on the frontline of healthcare in and alongside the NHS will be deeply impacted. The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the tax bill of each GP surgery will increase by £20,000 a year, likely resulting in a reduced number of appointments. The Nuffield Trust has said that providers in the adult social care sector will face a £940 million increase, dwarfing the social care support announced in the Budget. Community Pharmacy England says that community pharmacists will be hit by an additional £50 million each year, inevitably causing pharmacies to close and services to deteriorate. Hospice UK warns that £30 million will be added to the bill for 200 hospices across the country, which will lead to greater pressure on NHS palliative services.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend is a fellow Lincolnshire MP. In Lincoln we have St Barnabas hospice, a greatly loved local institution where most people would want to spend their final days. We also have the Lincolnshire air ambulance, and we have GPs all over our huge county who are struggling. Can he explain how it is in the public interest to attack these people?
Gareth Davies
My right hon. Friend—a Lincolnshire colleague and Father of the House—puts it perfectly. Labour says that it supports public services and that those services are apparently being trashed, so why on earth would the Government then go and tax them? Why add to their cost base, which they have very clearly said will reduce services across every constituency? Labour Members will all walk through the Lobby tonight and add to the cost burden of those services. It does not make sense. Charities have also signalled the alarm, with more than 7,000 writing to the Chancellor to warn of the £1.4 billion hit that they will face next year.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Back Benchers need to speak to their Ministers? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) suggested, the Government cannot have meant to do this deliberately. They could accept our amendments today or move some of the funds for the NHS—the £22 billion or £25 billion, whatever it is—across to this, because the NHS depends on social care and other services. At the moment, the Government risk turning something that could be a triumph for them into a disaster, both for the NHS and, more importantly, for patients and those most in need.
Gareth Davies
Once again, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I have said already, I am not sure that this was intended. I do not think the Government understand what these measures will do to our communities, to the sectors I have outlined and to the businesses that I will speak about in a minute. The Minister will have to address my right hon. Friend’s point. What will the Government do to mitigate the damage of the Bill on the communities and organisations that I have highlighted?
A sector I have not yet highlighted is childcare, without which millions of parents across the country could not go to work—including, by the way, many in this House. The Bill will contribute an average of £47,000 in additional costs per nursery next year, according to the National Day Nurseries Association. The previous Government did so much to extend childcare to more families, boosting workforce participation and economic growth, but this tax hike will pull us back from that progress. That is not what people voted for. There is no mandate for this harm. I urge the Government to think again.
Ideally, all employers would be made exempt, which is why the Conservatives voted against the Bill. At this time of year, people should be reflecting on another year gone by all too soon and looking to the new year with hope, ambition and optimism, but so many employers will now enter 2025 with fear. Many will be thinking again about that planned expansion or the investment in new equipment or premises. Worse, some will be thinking about who they need to let go—never mind awarding the pay rises in the spring they once hoped to give.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend is an astute man, and he has picked up on something that I fear. According to S&P Global’s purchasing managers’ index, this has been the third consecutive month of job losses; December has seen the highest number since 2021, in the pandemic. It has said:
“Barring the pandemic, the survey has not seen job losses on this scale since the global financial crisis in 2009.”
That is a direct impact of the choices in the Budget and this NIC increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is something the Government really need to think about?
Gareth Davies
I agree completely with my hon. Friend, who has once again made a very astute intervention. It marries very clearly with what we have seen in business confidence. He mentioned the record since the pandemic. Business confidence has tanked to low levels that we have not seen since the economy had to be shut down during the pandemic. A survey by the CBI, which makes for stark reading, says that 62% of businesses have said that they will have to reduce recruitment, while 48% have said that they will be reducing existing staff levels. That is all because this Bill will impact them in ways they never imagined and were never told about. Whether businesses freeze or cut jobs, or, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned, shift employees to a self-employed basis, or, even worse, offshore workers to overseas destinations, the potential impact on employment should absolutely worry us all.
That is why we have tabled new clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of this tax rise on the employment rate within a year of the passage of the Act. It is not controversial; it just seeks clarification and an assessment.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
This impact assessment is extremely important, not least because at a macro level—given that the UK is essentially a services-based economy in which human capital is the most expensive fixed cost, effectively—there is no way to escape this tax. Unlike corporation tax, which is levied on profits, this tax is levied whether a business is making a profit or not; businesses that have been marginal but struggling may well be forced into a loss, and may therefore choose to close down. It therefore has to be essential that we look backwards, if this tax goes ahead, and ask what the impact has been from a services point of view.
Gareth Davies
That was a classic case of how to make an intervention, because it added to the debate. I had not mentioned that point, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on employers, who will pay the tax whether they are profitable or not, is absolutely right. That is, again, not something I think the Government have fully appreciated.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Today I stand proud to welcome the Budget, which takes long-term fiscal planning seriously. I welcome a Government who will take us away from the course the previous Government steered, away from austerity, and away from the chaos and confusion of the past few Budgets.
First, I want to make a brief point about tax simplification and the confusion across the Chamber in this debate and in the many amendments. The way to reform a tax system is not to argue for various exemptions, reliefs and get-out clauses for different subsectors, but to have a consistent approach to collecting tax applied across the whole economy and then to fund those sectors of the economy, such as healthcare, transport and so on, which we should be funding. That is the approach the Budget has taken. Many Members of successive previous Governments have said that we need to simplify our tax system. I suggest that asking for dozens of small amendments to a Bill is not a way to achieve that aim. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) pointed out, that is not the way to run any tax system, not even on local government level.
Dr Luke Evans
I am very grateful. The hon. Lady makes a fantastic point about wanting to set out the tax base. The difficulty is that the Government are also spending on the NHS. Fundamentally, GPs are private contractors to the NHS. Care providers are private contractors. Therefore, the Government have to make a choice: are they going to exempt them or will those private contractors have to pay? At the moment, the Government have done neither thing. That is the fundamental argument we are having on these amendments in trying to protect those contractors, because the Government have not made a choice. They have said that at some point there may be some payments along the way. That is the concern on the Opposition Benches. What is her answer to that?
Yuan Yang
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for highlighting the perilous state of GPs in my constituency of Earley and Woodley after 14 years of the previous Government stripping away the NHS. I am very confident in the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which he has made several times in this Chamber, to take all funding decisions in the round. I very much look forward to seeing the quality of GPs improve. I also highlight the funding already announced for increasing the number of practitioners in GP surgeries. I expect to welcome them in my constituency, as well as across the UK.
I return to my point about long-term fiscal planning. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) made the point that we need to make choices. Over and over again on the doorstep I have been told that public services are broken, that crime too often goes unpunished on our high streets, and that mortgage rates, which have shot up wildly over the past few years, are too much of a burden on everyday families. All that creates uncertainty and it is that economic uncertainty that hurts businesses. That is why I welcome, for the first time in many years, a credible Budget that addresses the fundamental problems facing our society. Yes, we have to understand the current fiscal situation in the context of the bad decisions that were made before us. We all know about the tax giveaway mini-Budget under Liz Trust and the perilous effects it had on gilts, pension funds and, of course, mortgages, for which we are all now paying the price.
Yuan Yang
I will give way in a moment.
I add to that the bad decisions made in the previous two Budgets under the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt). Those decisions were not credible. It was not credible, on the March 2024 OBR forecast, that the next Government would do anything about schools, special educational needs and disabilities or the NHS. Those were not credible promises made in the last two Budgets. Those giveaways were made by Governments without a plan; Governments who literally cut and ran by calling an early summer election so they would not have to face the consequences of their bad fiscal choices. They left us with a bill to pay and this Government are now making that possible in a considered way.
Graham Stuart
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. She rightly highlights interest rates and mortgage payments. Was she disappointed when the OBR’s assessment of the Budget suggested that interest rates were going to stay higher for longer as a result of these measures? I invite her to discuss the topic under discussion today, rather than the past Conservative Government. We can have debates on that, but what we are trying to drill into today are the actions of this Government and their real-world impact on those who can least afford it.
Yuan Yang
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. I always welcome conversations with the OBR, whose representatives came before the Treasury Committee only a few weeks ago. In that Committee discussion, we had a full debate on its forecasts. It found that the long-term infrastructure and capital spending in the Budget, which is made possible by the different tax announcements the Government have set out, means that the economy will, in the long run, be 1.5% larger. I would add that the forecasts in the OBR’s assessment of the Budget have not yet taken into account all the various details of the measures that will be announced in the forthcoming months. I expect those forecasts to improve.
To return to the bill that the Government are now paying, we need to build back our economy and public services. That task requires at least a decade of national renewal. That is why in the Budget we set out credible long-term funding commitments and plans for where the money comes from.
On small businesses, I recently spent Small Business Saturday out and about visiting local employers across my constituency of Earley and Woodley. I agree very much that those small businesses are the backbone of our local economy; they bring character and jobs to our high streets. One such shop I visited is called UnderTwoK, a shopfront on Wokingham Road. I asked the owner, Mark, what the Government could do to help small businesses like his. He said:
“keep going with the focus on economic stability and clean energy. That’ll bring more people our way.”
Small businesses know that the Government are on their side. They know that, because the Chancellor increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, ensuring that the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions will not hit the smallest businesses. Those employing four members of staff on the minimum wage will not be hit by the measure. That means that 865,000 employers will not pay any NICs at all next year and over 1 million will pay the same or less than they did previously. The changes have been very much welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses.
The top concern I heard about from those retail businesses is not about NICs, but about shoplifting and crime on our high streets, which all too often goes unpunished. The funds raised in the Budget allow us to employ over 13,000 additional neighbourhood police officers, police community support officers and special constables by 2029. They will also fund 1,200 new police officers. Introducing the specific offence of assaulting a shop worker and attaching prison time to that offence is backed up by the commitment to put £2.3 billion towards prison builds over the next two years. That is an example of how we are helping small businesses: not just by talking the talk, but by walking the walk fiscally.
Yuan Yang
I have taken two interventions, which was the number I set for myself, and we do like sticking to numbers on the Government Benches.
I am proud that the Labour Government are asking the wealthiest individuals and largest businesses to pay a little more, so we can rebuild the foundations of our broken economy. That means: more money into the NHS, with £25 billion in NHS funding over the next two years, which is sorely needed in my constituency and across the country; and £7 billion for education in the next financial year, including £1 billion for SEND. Those are the kinds of decisions that would not be possible under the March 2024 forecast. Opposition Members may look at the OBR assessment of that forecast if they are in any doubt about that. Those decisions would not be possible if the Government were not taking important and serious decisions. That is why I stand, very happily, to support the Budget that we set out.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies). Increasing employers’ national insurance contributions will be hugely detrimental not only to businesses, but to employees in my constituency. I have been contacted by many local businesses which have expressed disappointment about the Chancellor’s breaking of her manifesto promise not to raise national insurance contributions, anger that it has been done without a full realisation of the consequences for the wider economy, and fear that they may not be able to weather the impact of this decision. I want to take a few moments to share with the Committee some examples of organisations in my constituency that have reached out to me to explain why these amendments are so necessary.
Bradley Barns is a family-run nursery school in Malpas which provides full day care and early years education for nearly 80 families from the local community and surrounding areas. Access to quality childcare provision is vital for the many parents and carers who need to balance jobs with family life. Of course, Bradley Barns hugely values all its employees, and is keen to be the best employer it can be. It currently employs 24 staff whose skills, time and care are vital to children during their formative years. However, while the impact of the Bill might force some businesses to lose staff, in the nursery sector, where the child-to-staff ratio is so critical—indeed, it is a legal requirement—Bradley Barns cannot do that, and nor would it want to. Matt and Vicky, who run Bradley Barns, tell me that as a direct result of this policy, they will now need to find an additional £2,600 every year for each person whom they employ.
The Government made clear in their manifesto that they would not tax working people, so who exactly does the Chancellor think will be paying for her decision? It will be working people in Chester South and Eddisbury and across the country, and at many nursery schools like Bradley Barns they will be left with no option but to increase fees. For some families, the increase will not be affordable: that is the harsh reality of the Government’s choice.
I also want to highlight, as others have, the impact on the many hospices that provide vital support and care for people at the most vulnerable time in their lives. I recently visited St Luke’s Hospice and the Hospice of the Good Shepherd, two of the wonderful hospices caring for individuals and families throughout my constituency, and met their leaders and staff. We know about the funding challenges that such hospices already face. They rely on the good will and generosity of so many people who donate. This ill thought-through Bill will add substantially to their costs, and none of us wants to see them forced to cut services or reduce the level of care that they provide. I sincerely hope that hospices, and the people for whom they care so brilliantly, do not pay the price of this policy, and that the compromise suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is considered.
So many business have contacted me to share their concerns about the detrimental impact of this decision. It will be felt by community pharmacies, by GPs who may be forced to compromise on the care they provide for their patients because they are not eligible for employment allowance, by care providers and by nurseries.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The hon. Member has mentioned GPs. Blackburn has one of the highest numbers of patients per GP in the UK. Not enough appointments are available, which places a huge strain on the Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, and only last week the hospital was put on red alert. Does the hon. Member agree that increasing national insurance contributions will mean fewer GP appointments in Blackburn, that the hospital—which is already in a dire state—will be in an even worse position, and that the situation will get out of control?
Aphra Brandreth
That is an important point. These are the unintended consequences that must be considered, and this is why we really must consider the amendment. The impact of the Bill will be felt throughout the economy: it poses the risk of higher inflation, and it will mean fewer employment opportunities. This decision affects businesses both small and large, it affects our local and national economy, and it affects employees who will not enjoy a pay rise or, worse still, will potentially lose their jobs.
Daisy Cooper
Part-time workers, especially in the hospitality sector, will be very badly affected. Before these changes a person could work 14 hours a week without incurring employers’ national insurance contributions, but that has now been reduced to eight hours, which will be very disruptive to weekend shifts in particular. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is an especially negative consequence of the changes?
Aphra Brandreth
That is another important point, about yet another group who will be badly impacted by these ill thought-through changes. I urge the Government to think again, and to back these very necessary amendments.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I support the measures in the Budget. Given the speech that we heard from the shadow Minister, before we get into the policy I want to pause and acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of small businesses in my constituency and throughout the country. Every single day, countless individuals take on the challenge of building and running these vital organisations. The task is not always easy, but it is a labour of love, involving long hours, personal sacrifice and financial risk. These businesses are the heartbeat of our communities and the backbone of the British economy, and we all owe them our deepest gratitude. I have had the privilege of working for small businesses and witnessing at first hand the dedication that it takes. Members of my family have run small businesses, so I know how personal it is. It is not just a job; it is a way of life, and a commitment to local community. We must celebrate and support the work of those businesses at every turn.
Since becoming an MP, I have made it a priority to listen to small business owners. Their stories, their challenges and their hopes drive, and will continue to drive, my work in this Chamber, and let make it clear that this Government stand firmly behind them and will continue to do so. That is why I am proud that the Chancellor has agreed to raise the employment allowance to £10,500, a move that ensures that the smallest half of businesses will see either no increase or a reduction in their national insurance bills. It is a lifeline for the businesses that need it the most—and let us dispel the myths we have heard from Opposition Members: 75% of the funds raised from this policy will come from the largest 2% of businesses. But my plea to every single member of the Government is this: please keep engaging and listening to small businesses, because they continue to need our support.
I am sorry, but I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on supporting small businesses when they have spent 14 years making their lives miserable. When their Government came to power I was working in the kitchen of a small business, the Dolphin pub in Newport Pagnell High Street; admittedly there was a bit of nepotism there, as my uncle Trev was the landlord. Back then the high street was alive, but today it tells a very different story. Many buildings are shuttered, pubs have closed, and a number of our small businesses have been lost. Under the last Tory Government, 10 pubs closed every single week—including, I have just read, many in the shadow Minister’s constituency. In 2022 alone, 345,000 small businesses shut their doors. Members can walk up and down any high street in the country today and observe the toll. This Government are determined to turn the tide.
Too many shelves are empty after being raided by out-of-control shoplifters. The revenue raised through the national insurance changes means that the country can afford our manifesto commitment to 13,000 more police officers and staff who can crack down on the shoplifters who are affecting many small businesses—and, as an aside, we will reverse the outrageous Conservative decision not to pursue shoplifters for thefts of goods worth less than £200. Too many businesses, including some that survived world wars and a global pandemic, were put at risk by the spiralling costs and interest rates caused by the Liz Truss mini-Budget. The revenue raised from this Budget will close down the £22 billion pound black hole that the Conservatives left to us, so we will not see a repeat of those disastrous events.
Too many small companies saw their energy bills skyrocket because of the disastrous energy policies of the last Government. We are setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company that will invest in clean energy here in the UK and end our reliance on foreign oil and gas.
Too many small businesses are being crippled by staff shortages, often because workers are stuck on NHS waiting lists for months. Because of the NICs changes, we can afford to put a record amount of investment into our NHS to get those waiting lists down.
Daisy Cooper
Does the hon. Member agree that because the previous Government gutted public health and primary care, there is now a crisis in the NHS? Although it is right that the Government want to move care away from hospitals and back into the community, does he understand the concern of some of us on this side of the House that the move to increase national insurance contributions on GPs, dentists and pharmacists will actually undermine that drive?
Chris Curtis
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I refer her back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). Our tax system has got even more complicated, particularly after the last 14 years, and we do not want to see the level of complexity, which costs businesses and organisations, continue to spiral out of control. It is important that we make these changes in a simple way, but extra money is going into our NHS and will be flowing through the system. At the moment, the Department of Health and Social Care is looking at how to make sure that the extra funding is spent as effectively and efficiently as possible. I look forward to hearing soon from the Health Secretary about how that money will benefit all elements of our national health service, but I do not think that that is a reason to add extra complexity to an already complex tax system.
We do not want to raise taxes, and I appreciate that decisions like this are never easy—[Interruption.] The Conservatives laugh, but they raised taxes to record levels, broke our public services and left us with a £22.6 billion black hole. The reality is that they left us with no choice. Our goal is to lay the foundations for a thriving, resilient economy, where businesses can grow, communities can prosper and future generations can thrive.
What we have heard from the Opposition today is a repeat of what got us into this mess time and again. Liz Truss promised unfunded tax cuts and crashed the economy. The last Tory leader promised unfunded tax cuts and left a £22 billion black hole. The Tory party is promising unfunded tax cuts again, and will not say where the money is going to come from. That is what got us into this mess, and it is ludicrous to think that it will get us out of it. However, the mess that the Conservatives got this country into is about more than basic arithmetic; it was a complete failure to achieve any economic growth.
If growth in the UK had simply matched the OECD average, workers would have £5,000 more in their pay packets and the Treasury would have £50 billion more in tax revenues, without having to raise a single penny in tax. Just imagine how much better families would feel with that money in their pockets. We would not need to raise any taxes today if we had the extra tax revenue that was stolen from us by the Conservatives’ failure. Instead, they trapped us in a cycle of low growth, low productivity and low investment. That is the grim legacy of a Government who failed to create conditions for businesses to thrive. From a chaotic planning system to a revolving door of four Chancellors in five years, they have sown uncertainty at every single turn. Let us not forget the economic self-harm of Brexit, which was executed without a clear plan.
The Budget, including the NICs changes—
Dr Luke Evans
On a point of order, Ms Nokes. We are debating the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, in which I am not sure that Brexit is mentioned. I look to your leadership to decide whether the hon. Gentleman is in order.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will be aware that it is important that Members stay in order. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) has given some context in his speech, but he might be reminded of the need to stick to national insurance contributions.
Chris Curtis
Thank you, Ms Nokes. I am happy to count the number of times I have mentioned national insurance in my speech, but I can guarantee Conservative Members that it has been quite frequent. I will mention it again in the following sentence.
The Budget, including the NICs changes, makes hard decisions to fix the foundations of our economy. We will work tirelessly to bring about the economic growth that the previous Government failed to achieve, so that we do not have to make such hard decisions in the future. It is only by doing so and not engaging in the fantasy economics of the Conservative party that we can break free from the cycle of failure, support businesses of all sizes and create a brighter future for our country.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I am proud to have tabled several amendments to the Bill to support people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the organisations that lobbied me to do so. Amendments 10, 11 and 12 seek to protect Northern Ireland’s healthcare, social care, childcare, hospices, and community and voluntary sectors from the impacts of the proposed rise in employer’s national insurance contributions. Those sectors provide vital services in Lagan Valley and right across Northern Ireland, yet they are being asked to bear a disproportionate burden without the ability to mitigate the costs.
Let me begin by recognising the importance of sustainable funding for public services. My party welcomed many aspects of the Chancellor’s inaugural Budget, including changes to fiscal rules, NHS investment, and the unpausing of city and growth deals. However, we are deeply concerned about the consequences of the national insurance increase for critical sectors in Northern Ireland that are already operating under immense financial strain.
During the last five years, community and voluntary groups have played a critical role, from supporting our communities during the covid-19 pandemic to responding to the ongoing cost of living crisis. However, despite their vital contributions, they are once again treated as peripheral when it comes to matters of funding and taxation. In Northern Ireland, our higher public sector dependency and chronic underfunding mean that such groups in our region are uniquely vulnerable to the rise in NI. Indeed, the recent Executive monitoring round in October made it clear that the Barnett consequential remains inadequate to cover departmental overcommitments.
Community and voluntary organisations are not an optional extra. They are currently a cornerstone of public service delivery, often co-designing and implementing essential programmes in partnership with Government. However, when financial pressures mount, they are frequently left to shoulder an unfair burden. The national insurance hike risks further entrenching that inequity. Such organisations should not be regarded as expendable. They must be exempt from the increase, which is precisely what my amendments seek to achieve.
Northern Ireland’s hospices are overwhelmingly reliant on private donations, and Members from across the House have referred to the Westminster Hall debate that we had only a few weeks ago. Regardless of their opinion on the subject, everyone recognised the importance of hospices, yet the proposed NI rise will see some of their doors close. That is the reality of what we are facing today. As for trying to get a GP appointment, good luck—not just in Lagan Valley and Northern Ireland, but right across the UK—as general practice is struggling to meet the many demands that are put on it.
Today I want to highlight the unique circumstances that we in Northern Ireland face. The challenges are not abstract; they are real, tangible and deeply felt by my constituents. It should come as no surprise to Members present that Northern Ireland’s health waiting lists are some of the longest in Europe, and far exceed those in the rest of the UK. Despite being the bedrock of our healthcare system and being under immense financial strain in Northern Ireland, providers such as GPs, dentists and pharmacists are currently not exempt from the rise in NI, even though they are already struggling under immense cost pressures. Capacity reductions in primary care are simply not an option for Northern Ireland. Dental practices, particularly those providing NHS services, which are in high demand, have seen operating costs surge by 30% to 40% since 2019.
With Department of Health funding failing to keep pace, many practices are unable to provide affordable care to patients. Indeed, anecdotal and evidential data shows that, in some areas of deprivation, young children are presenting with extreme tooth issues and have nowhere to go. In a joint statement earlier this month, Community Pharmacy NI, the British Medical Association NI, the British Dental Association NI and Optometry NI said:
“Medical, pharmacy, dental and optometry providers are the front door to the health service for families across Northern Ireland and vital for the transformation of care here. Yet these services are under extreme financial pressure, resulting in the closure of general practices.”
Indeed, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) mentioned that many GPs are being forced to hand back contracts. The statement continues:
“Without adequate protection from these UK Government policy changes, the precarious position of Family Practitioner Services in Northern Ireland will deteriorate further. It is now an urgent imperative for the UK Government to protect primary care or risk the collapse of these vital services in communities across Northern Ireland.”
I turn to the voluntary and community sectors. The voluntary sector employs over 55,000 staff in Northern Ireland and delivers essential services, often on behalf of Government. New research from the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action has revealed the devastating impact this NIC increase will have on the sector. A recent NICVA survey of 68 organisations found that 76% expect major financial impacts, with additional costs of between £5,000 and £200,000 annually. One social care provider anticipates annual increases of up to £500,000. Many organisations predict inevitable redundancies, particularly in core administrative roles.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
This Labour Government will invest to rebuild our broken nation. Investment in our future will be paid for by tax revenue, and today we are debating the largest revenue-raising policy in our Budget. I am proud that revenue will be raised from the largest businesses to fund the homes, jobs and skills that we need to create a good, affordable life for us all. For those of us in our nation who cannot afford a decent life, the picture has become increasingly bleak: non-graduates and the young are locked out of the opportunities that previous generations had, and there are not enough homes, good jobs or skills.
We are raising the money for investment in homes, jobs and skills from those who are most able to afford it. We are raising £23 billion—investment that every business, family and young person will benefit from—and 75% of the revenue is from the largest 2% of businesses. We are raising that money while protecting the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance; the Federation of Small Businesses has said that that is a huge help as we bring in this revenue raiser. Half of all businesses will pay the same or less, and a quarter of a million will see their tax bill fall.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is most gracious for giving way. He is also a highly distinguished economist. He has talked about this record tax-raising element. What will the net value of the £23 billion or £26 billion be, after we have looked at behaviour change, reduction in corporation tax receipts and compensation of the public sector? How much of that will come into the Government coffers?
Dr Sandher
I thank the right hon. Member for his incredibly kind words. For me, this is actually rather simple. I follow the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, which goes through the Treasury policy costing and gets signed off. Those are the numbers I look at, and that is the money that will come in.
We are raising the money, as set out in those forecasts, in a fair way to invest in our future prosperity. We are using that money to build the homes that we need. In the mid-1990s, it took a young person around three years to save for a deposit. Now it is over 14 years, and in London it is nearly 30. That is why nearly half of young people are living at home with their parents, and why we are investing the tax revenue from the measures that we are discussing in the affordable homes programme. That means more homes for young people.
We are also using this money to create good jobs. The idea that someone could leave school and get a decent wage left our nation long ago. There are low-paid and insecure service jobs for some, but many are unable to get a job at all. Today, around 15% of young people are not in education, employment or training. Our warm homes plan, which will upgrade 300,000 homes, will also create tens of thousands of good jobs.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Analysis shows that this measure will hit the low paid and the young hardest. It will not help young people to get all the things that the hon. Gentleman describes, because they are the group who will find things most difficult as a result of it.
Dr Sandher
The young and the lowest paid work in the smallest businesses. Some analysis, including that from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, does not include these measures, and does not have matched employer-employee datasets. Indeed, Paul Johnson admitted as much when he came before the Treasury Committee.
Dr Luke Evans
I am grateful to my fellow Leicestershire MP for giving way. One of the ways that we can judge the market is by looking at vacancies. James Reed, who runs the Reed recruitment agency, has seen a 13% drop in advertisements on the company’s website. He has sounded the alarm that that could be a sign of recession, and that is the implication of what we are voting on today. How will the measure support young people if there are no jobs out there for them?
Dr Sandher
I direct the hon. Gentleman to today’s labour market statistics. Employment is still high; unemployment is about the same as it was; and I think inactivity is falling. In the official statistics, the picture looks good.
More broadly, vacancies are not the measure that we want to look at. Instead, we want to look at the number of people in jobs. The revenue that we are raising today will be invested in actions that directly create those good jobs. The warm homes plan will upgrade 300,000 homes, which is tens of thousands of good jobs. The expansion of early years childcare is tens of thousands of good jobs. Businesses need to know that they have the healthy workforce that they need, and more people who are available to work. This is a Budget for growth and for jobs.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman talks about the expansion of early years childcare, but that will not be of much use if nurseries shut down because they cannot pay their national insurance. Does he understand that dynamic?
Dr Sandher
I absolutely understand the benefits of early years childcare, which is why we are so proud that it is a key part of this Government’s opportunity mission and is one of our milestones. We know that money invested today will pay dividends in the future. Labour Members we are absolutely committed to expanding and investing in early years childcare.
More broadly, this measure is also about investing in our young people. One in three young people is experiencing mental health problems, and one in 20 is too sick to work. That number is only rising. There has been a threefold increase in health problems that make it too difficult to do day-to-day activities. This generation of mine is without hope and without health. For those who have been struck down by hopelessness, and who are now too sick to work, our “Get Britain Working” programme, combining health, skills and employment support, is rebuilding confidence. It is helping people into good jobs, and is restoring dignity, purpose and sense of community to every person and place in our nation.
This Bill speaks to our governing philosophy, which is that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest load. As we have seen, we are changing our nation and rebuilding hope in our communities, our country, and indeed our democracy. We are building a country that gets better, rather than worse; where every person can get a good job; where every person can afford a decent home; and where every person can get the skills that they need, so that we can all live once again in a country where working hard means a decent life. That is what we are investing in, and that is why we are proud to raise revenue through the measure that we are debating today.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to support the amendments and new clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies). If this Government’s goal was to fix the foundations, I am afraid the result has been subsidence. Business confidence has plummeted, and two thirds of firms think that Labour’s Budget, including the NI increase, will damage investment.
An economy grows on the back of hard-working people investing, taking risks and employing local people in constituencies like mine of Mid Bedfordshire. How does the Labour party reward those people for their hard work? It raises their taxes, it makes it harder for them to employ people, and it reduces the amount they take home at the end of the month. It justifies that by telling them that they are not really working people.
Conservatives understand that growth is created from the hard work of entrepreneurs up and down our country, driving our economy forward. Across the country, millions of people want stronger economic growth. That is what they voted for, but they now have a low-growth, high-tax, job-cutting Labour Government. They were promised change, but they did not expect that change to be to Labour’s manifesto commitment not to increase national insurance. That change hikes the cost of employing someone by £800, reduces the number of jobs in the economy, reduces the wages of working people and increases prices in shops.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is extraordinary to follow Opposition Members, with their short-sightedness and, frankly, short memory of the damage they have done to this country. Indeed, it is the very definition of chutzpah. I have been in this place for 14 years, and I watched what happened unfold in my constituency and across the country. That is how we got to this Bill today. New MPs may wish to rewrite history, but many of us can give testimony to the damage the Conservatives did.
This country should be grateful that we now have a Chancellor who is facing up to the fantasy public finances that we inherited from the previous Government, and who is trying to rebuild this nation. We finally have a framework for improving our rail services. Anybody thinking about getting on a train this Christmas knows how far we have to go. The damage lies at the door of the previous Conservative Government.
This Government are devolving meaningful powers to local government and generating clean electricity, which are just two things that the previous Government could not even understand, let alone get a grip of. We are certainly developing a better approach to our infrastructure.
In their final years in office, the Conservatives passed tax cuts that the country could not afford. There may have been genuine shocks around the world, but we can see the damage the Conservatives did, and we can see that they chose to compound it with bad choices. They did not just break Britain; they slashed it and burned it to the ground. That means this Government’s first year in office is a salvage operation. The previous Government’s decision to prioritise fake tax cuts over sustained investment in our public infrastructure has cost us all dearly.
Those who are sceptical of what I am saying should stand in an A&E and see the trolleys in the corridors, as 7.9 million people still wait for operations. They should talk to the schools with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, to the councils barely clinging on to provide social care, and to the police who just do not exist on our streets.
Graham Stuart
As the hon. Lady knows, 4 million jobs were created under the last Conservative Government. She has just talked movingly about patients stuck on trolleys in corridors. Could she explain to the Committee how the Labour Government’s policies in England will differ from the policies of the Labour Government in Wales, which has far worse outcomes and worse waiting lists than anywhere in England.
Ms Creasy
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what this Government are going to do differently: they will make a difference to all our constituents by getting waiting lists down with the money provided to invest in our NHS. The previous Government were all vandals, and we have seen the damage they have done.
The challenge before us in the Bill is to ensure this Government do not make the same mistakes, but instead address head-on the need to build the necessary foundations. To deal with the expectations of the public—our constituents—we need to talk more openly about the fact that having better services requires better funding through taxation. The broken Britain we now see will not fix itself with a bit of time. Worse, the public cannot be distracted from the problems they see by being given someone else to blame—trans people, refugees, immigrants, women or foreigners generally. That is a fantasy the British public did not buy at the last election, and they should not be promised it again. They know we have a difficult road ahead and difficult choices to make, but they will back those choices if they can see there is a reason to do so.
Above all, the British public understand that this country needs investment and growth. I am chair of the Labour Movement for Europe and I think there needs to be discussion about our future relationship with Europe, but that is for another time. We also need infrastructure, which is why I have proposed new clause 4. Infrastructure is not just about roads and rail, but about the services people need every day to be able to get to work and to manage their commitments, including childcare.
As somebody who spent 14 years urging the previous Government to invest in childcare, I will brook no lectures from the Opposition now they have had a damascene conversion to the idea that it matters. Childcare is economic infrastructure. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but time and again he voted against proposals to make childcare a matter of economic infrastructure.
New clause 4 is about how best we invest in our people to be able to grow our economy. As we make tough choices, it is important we do so in a way that means our productivity improves, which means looking out for parents as well as potholes. We are in the middle of the biggest expansion of childcare this country has ever seen, to try to get to a point where every parent can access 30 hours of free childcare for all under-fives. Under the last Government, some parents were paying more for childcare than for their rent or their mortgage. The previous Government repeatedly failed to invest, and then they made promises that they knew they could never keep, pushing up demand without increasing supply. We must not make the same mistakes.
It is vital for our economy to make childcare more accessible and affordable, and we know we have a way to go. In rural areas, there are 31% fewer childcare places compared with inner cities and town centres. The most deprived communities have 32% fewer places per child, compared with affluent areas. Of the poorest fifth of parents with young children, only a third use formal childcare, compared with 73% of the highest earning households. The previous Government reinforced that inequality, rather than addressing it in their childcare policies. That is why in my constituency there are still three children chasing every single childcare place.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Lady has always been an advocate for childcare. One way the previous Government tried to address the issue was to try to stop the cliff edge for childcare by looking at households rather than individual parents. In the last Budget, the Government were looking at the proposal to consider households as one unit. Does that mean the hon. Lady has changed her mind and would support that mechanism being looked at again? It would solve a lot of the problems caused by, for example, a single parent having to pay for childcare because they are exempt, whereas a household containing a couple who earn under £45,000 are not eligible.
Ms Creasy
Let me reach the hand of co-operation across the House to the hon. Gentleman, if he wants to finally work on what would be a genuinely affordable and accessible childcare system in this country. However, I will temper his enthusiasm, because his party made things worse. Under the previous Government, there was a 50% reduction in childcare place. We saw nurseries closing time and again because of the changes his Government made. We are starting from a foundation where the places simply do not exist. For the places that are there, too often it is those who can well afford childcare who are taking them.
If we are to get to a position where we have the childcare places we need, so that every child can get the best start in life in this country, we need to invest. We need to ensure that we save what is there and encourage those nurseries that can expand to do so. If we do that, we will reap the rewards, both in the Exchequer and in society. That is why early years provision matters to the future of this country.
Research by the Education Policy Institute shows that 40% of the disadvantage gap at the age of 16 has already emerged by the age of five. Equally, investment in early years means we could save £16 billion a year later, according to the London School of Economics. It also means we will get more money, because more people—mothers, fathers and carers—can make the choice to work and pay tax.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Lady is making a compelling case about the need to invest to save. When we invest upstream in our public services, that often saves money for the taxpayer further down the line. Does she agree with the Liberal Democrats that that could be equally applied to investing in GPs, dentists and pharmacists to relieve pressure on the NHS?
Ms Creasy
I have worked with the hon. Lady on various issues, and I hope she will give me the latitude to expand my argument and set out my proposals, which we could move forward on together as a House. I do not doubt her sincerity, but I also recognise the fiscal destruction of the previous Government that we need to deal with, which means we need to tell the British public the truth about what needs to happen. Making unfunded promises is as bad as not promising to act.
Parent surveys show that a real difference is made when 30 hours of childcare is offered. That amount of childcare enables families to make choices about getting back into work. If we want to get to 30 hours by September next year, we need 60,000 additional childcare places and 29,000 extra members of staff. If we do not have fundamental root and branch reform of how we fund the provision of childcare, that will cost about £72 million extra a year on hiring staff alone. That is the challenge we face if we want to get this right.
I know how hard the Minister is working to get the economy growing again. I know he is going to hear pleas from every single sector about the impact of the national insurance changes; nobody should be under any illusion that they are not difficult changes. I make a plea for the childcare sector because I believe that in the end, it will pay for itself. If we are able to get more people back to work, especially mums, who all too often end up bearing the burden of childcare, we will be able to raise more taxes and there will be more investment as a result.
That is particularly true of the childcare sector because it is a people-intensive industry. Staffing costs make up 75% of a nursery’s running costs, compared with 30% for the average restaurant. Because the previous Government systemically failed to invest in childcare, the majority of childcare has been provided by the private sector. Some 85% of places are delivered outside the state sector. There is little flexibility on numbers in the sector, because ratios—the number of people looking after little people—matter. These are not businesses with small numbers of staff; an average nursery has 14 members of staff, which means the additional costs will be about £36,000 to £39,000 a year. Around £14,000 of that will be national insurance.
Many Members agree that we need to invest in that childcare and will be pleased to see this Government trying to address the balance. The damage done under the previous Government meant that 83% of nursery providers said the funding they received did not cover their costs. That is why closures increased by 50% in the last couple of years. This Government have already increased the funding for our nurseries, but while that takes account of increases in wages costs, it does not take account of the increases in national insurance.
I tabled new clause 4, which is about having a review of one element of all that, to ensure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face when trying to get more people into work. We recognise that extra national insurance costs may have consequences, be they recruitment freezes, reduced staff training or even closures, at a time when we want the sector to expand. Indeed, the majority of nurseries have staff vacancies, so they need extra people already.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Lady is making a compelling case of logic as it applies to early years provision, and I do not think anybody in this place could argue with the logic she advances. Is it not so robust, however, that it also applies to primary care, hospices and charities, if it applies to nurseries?
Ms Creasy
I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am talking about a specific function of the way in which the childcare sector operates and the fact that it generates public Exchequer funding when we get people back into work. My argument here is that we invest to save. This is specifically about childcare. I am sure the hon. Member has read new clause 4 in depth, by the look on his face.
Ms Creasy
He will therefore understand why I suggest that we as a Parliament could look at how we address those issues. Right now, the sector is concerned. I do not think that is a surprise to anyone. It may be a damascene conversion for the Conservative party to suddenly care about it, but there is a concern across the sector about not going backwards.
Clause 3 will increase the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 and will reduce the current £100,000 threshold. It might be perceived that for some small businesses, particularly in the childcare sector, that would be a potential way forward in reducing some of the impact of the changes so those businesses can continue to expand. However, the challenge is right now, with the majority of childcare providers not qualifying for the employment allowance because of the way in which the sector operates and because it has been ignored, dismissed and derided by previous Governments. The majority of positions are produced in the private sector. That means they do not qualify.
There is perhaps an unintended irony in all that, however, which is that investing in more childcare, as we are doing, means that many of those small businesses will not be eligible for the employment allowance. As it is about companies that receive less than 50% of their income from public funding, while many childcare providers were originally in that position before money started going into them, the irony is that many fewer will be in that position in the coming years as a result, meaning that they will be denied the opportunity.
Childcare provision in educational settings will be able to benefit, so it is not a total denial. That means that if we are looking to expand childcare, in the current environment and without looking at how we can make that an equal opportunity for all childcare providers, that will have to be done through the state sector, which means having to find nurseries that can be provided in spare classrooms or childcare settings within an educational setting. That accounts for a small amount of the structures in place at the moment, and there is a risk that we will not see the investment in expansion because expansion in previous times has come through the private sector.
My concern, if I am frank, is that this is a perfect storm of our own making. With the best intentions of investing money from the Budget in childcare, we may inadvertently make it harder to expand childcare. That is why we need a review, because it is not clearcut that that will be the outcome, which is why I have tabled new clause 4. I also urge Ministers to look at business rates, which currently add around £21,000 to the average nursery. We found support in the Budget for those in retail and hospitality. We could look again at the childcare sector on the same basis.
Above all, we need to raise those questions and ask how we can ensure that we do not see a curtailment of childcare in this country, because the reality is that fees will then go up, making it even harder for parents to use it. That is what the Pregnant Then Screwed surveys are showing us: 90% of parents who have a place are terrified that costs will go up in the coming year, and 60% say that if that happened they would reduce their hours or leave work altogether.
This is a tough time, this is a tough Budget, and there are tough decisions to be made. We are not shying away from that and I am proud to be a member of a political party in government that is getting a grip of this country’s needs. However, I am also determined, as I am sure is everybody on the Back Benches, to make sure that we do that in the best way possible. If the Minister will not accept new clause 4, I hope he can tell us what work the Treasury is doing to ensure that childcare as a form of economic infrastructure can grow and support this country as it recovers from the last 14 years of Conservative Government.
We know that all those who will be affected—in the choice to work, to stay in work and to stay open and run a nursery—are literally the ones who have been paying the price of having a Conservative Government. We do not wish to make them pay all over again. The Conservatives broke Britain. We now need to be honest about the work and the investment that it will take to repair it.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I am greatly concerned about the consequences of this Bill. There are consequences for businesses, for employees and for essential primary care providers in my constituency and across the country. The Bill represents an unfair jobs tax that risks harming the livelihoods of countless individuals and the viability of small businesses at a time when they are already grappling with a multitude of challenges.
I wish to begin by highlighting the impact that this legislation will have on community pharmacies, which are at the frontline of healthcare in our local areas. The owner of Horton Pharmacy and Travel Clinic in Epsom has expressed grave concerns about the financial burden that this increase in employer national insurance contributions will impose. He told me:
“We are estimating that it’s going to cost an extra £12,000 a year. It’s very distressing and making it harder to keep our doors open and help reduce the burden on other parts of the NHS.”
Community pharmacies such as Horton Pharmacy play a critical role in alleviating pressure on our overstretched NHS by providing accessible healthcare and advice, yet the Bill threatens their financial viability, which in turn risks leaving constituents without the local care they rely on, thus increasing the burden on the NHS.
Dr Luke Evans
Is the hon. Lady aware that the National Pharmacy Association has agreed to collective action for the first time in its history, directly as a result of this Government’s Budget? Does she have any comment on that?
Helen Maguire
Yes, I am aware of that and I agree that it is a good way forward.
Another business in my constituency, the Family Building Society, is also facing substantial repercussions. Last Friday I met its chief executive officer, Mark Bogard, who shared that this national insurance increase will cost him approximately £300,000 every year. He said:
“Even as a mutual building society, with no shareholders to generate returns for, we cannot simply swallow that cost. So, going forward, we will inevitably now employ five or six fewer people.”
Madam Chair, these are real-world examples of the damaging ripple effects of the Bill. It will hit not just businesses, but employees, with fewer jobs, lower wages and missed opportunities. This Government claim that they want to kickstart economic growth, but how can firms grow when they are forced to cut jobs instead of investing in their business. How can the economy thrive when ambition is replaced with survival? This Bill does not kickstart economic growth; it slams on the brakes.
Across the board, this Bill threatens sectors vital to our economy and to society. Social care providers, GPs and hospices, already at breaking point, will now face further financial strain. Most of these organisations do not qualify for the employment allowance, meaning that they are exposed to these increases.
The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to exempt these essential providers from the tax rise, but those calls have been ignored. This decision will worsen the crises in our NHS and social care system, pushing more providers to the brink of bankruptcy.
Six in 10 care homes in the UK are operated by companies vulnerable to even mild economic shocks. How then can the Government justify imposing additional financial burdens on a sector already struggling to stay afloat? Let us be clear: the Government’s own analysis admits that nearly four times as many employers will lose out under this Bill as will benefit. For many employers, this will translate into an average annual tax increase of over £26,000. This is not just a jobs tax, but a growth tax, a productivity tax and, ultimately, an attack on people’s living standards.
This is a deeply inefficient way to raise funds, especially when fairer alternatives exist. The Liberal Democrats have proposed several measures that would raise revenue without harming jobs and growth. These include reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increasing the digital services tax and introducing a fairer form of capital gains tax to ensure that ultra-wealthy people pay their fair share. These measures would protect small businesses, support families and safeguard essential services, while still addressing the country’s fiscal challenges.
The people of Epsom and Ewell deserve better. They deserve a Government who support, not stifle, innovation, enterprise and community spirit. They deserve a Government who listen to small businesses, healthcare providers and families who are already struggling under the weight of rising costs and stagnant wages. This Bill is not the solution to our economic challenges; it is a blunt instrument that will do more harm than good, jeopardising jobs, living standards and essential services. I urge the Government to reconsider this unfair and counterproductive measure and to work with us to develop a fairer, more sustainable approach to taxation that prioritises people and communities.
Gareth Snell
I wish to start by reflecting on something that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said in his opening speech. He talked about socialists thinking that taxes just flow in. Given that he was a member of a Government that raised taxes to their highest level in history, perhaps this season it is less secret Santa for him, and more secret socialist. Perhaps, if he is lucky, under his Christmas tree on 25 December he will find a red flag that he can fly. I jest, Madam Chair, but the point is that that Government agreed with tax and spend—they taxed; the trouble was what they chose to spend the money on.
That is the difference between this Government and the Government that came before: we have made clear commitments about what we will spend the money raised by this national insurance Bill on. We will make investments into the NHS and our public services, such as our schools and hospitals, and we will fix the railways. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) chunters, but I cannot actually hear what he is saying. If he wishes to intervene, I will happily give way—no, I thought not.
The fact of the matter is that although this is not a decision that I would particularly have liked the new Government to make, having looked at the levers available to us and having made a political choice to protect the pay packets of individuals in work, this is a way of raising revenue.
Gareth Snell
I often think that we do not hear enough from the right hon. Gentleman, so on this one occasion I will give way.
Graham Stuart
Given the competition on the Labour Benches, the hon. Gentleman is one of the more honest and up-front Members in addressing some of the issues. Does he regret the exclusion of the various groups we have heard of today, from hospices to social care and childcare? Will he urge Ministers to look at whether they can create a more coherent and joined-up approach, so that the £22 billion—or whatever it is—going into the NHS actually works to improve the healthcare of the nation?
Gareth Snell
If the right hon. Gentleman hangs fire, he may be surprised by some of the things I will say as I try to progress my speech. Although, in that context, is it not laughable and ludicrous that some of the most important parts of our social care sector—our air ambulances and our hospices—are dependent upon charity; that they have to rattle tins in supermarkets, dependent on handouts and philanthropic grants on a non-reoccurring basis, just to continue the service they deliver? There is a much broader conversation that we have to have as a nation about how far general taxation should fund some of those programmes. The right hon. Gentleman rolls his eyes, but I would rather make a small contribution to ensure that hospices and air ambulances can run than to have to watch people sit in baths of beans to try to ensure that vulnerable people get the help and support they need when they need it. He may disagree with that, but we should discuss that broader point of how we fund some of those things and whether we consider them to be vital infrastructure to our health and care system.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that any fair taxation system should place the biggest burden on those with the broadest shoulders? That means taxing the wealthiest in this country, rather than hospices and the charitable sector.
Gareth Snell
Again, if my hon. Friend bears with me, I will get to that point, but I absolutely agree in principle that taxation in this country should fall on those most able to make that contribution. There is also a question about how we spend that money and use it in preventative services. Again, there is an argument to be had about how much of the money given to, for instance, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board is spent on reactive services that treat people, as opposed to preventative services that keep people well in the first place. There is definitely a discussion to be had in our communities about whether the commissioning bodies that have the money are commissioning the preventative services necessary to reduce acute demand.
Last Friday I listened to the charities convened by Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, and they themselves said that their biggest challenge before the national insurance increase was even mooted was the fact that they cannot get recurring funding year on year from health bodies, councils and the public sector. When they manage to get to the end of a project, they are told, “You’ve done that project. Come up with something new.” They are asked to redesign their service to chase a pot of money in order to deliver what essentially is the preventative service that stops the more acute services from facing greater demand. Again, we as a nation need to have a conversation—in part it is brought to a head by this Bill—about what role we see for charities in this and how we fund those services.
Daisy Cooper
For a long time we in this place have had debates about ensuring that the shift happens upstream in the sector, to support public health and primary care. Does the hon. Member accept that this measure will undermine the effort to put more investment upstream, and that it will force many charities to do even more fundraising to backfill the gap created by the national insurance contributions hike?
Gareth Snell
I absolutely agree. If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come to exactly that point later on.
My constituency is often in the top 50 for social and economic deprivation, and we are often wholly dependent on the charitable sector picking up people when they are at their lowest and most in need. Charities often do the really hard work in getting those individuals back to a place where they can even begin to access statutory support services, such are the demands placed on them by the services with which they are seeking to engage.
Let me take the example of supported housing. We talk quite rightly about giving people homes, but many of the people in Stoke-on-Trent who access the services that will be impacted by the national insurance contribution increases would not be able to live independently on their own in the months to come if it were not for supported housing. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) points out, that has a huge bearing on the acute cost at the presentation of final service.
Last Friday, Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, an excellent organisation run by Lisa Healings and her team, convened a meeting of local charities and the three Members of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent. Lisa helped me by compiling some of the specific impacts that the national insurance increase will have on charities and organisations in my community, and with the indulgence of the Committee, I will refer to some of them so that Members can hear the scale of the challenges that we face.
The first relates to the citizens advice bureau in Stoke-on-Trent, which does a phenomenal amount of work. It will see an increase of £150,000 to its national insurance contributions. Although it will be able to mitigate some of that impact, the change will just mean that people wait longer for help, or, perversely, that more people will enter MPs’ caseloads and visit our surgeries because the CAB often signposts to other agencies when it cannot meet demand.
The second largest impact I was told about is to the YMCA North Staffordshire, which will see its NI contributions rise by £101,000. That organisation routinely provides homes for young people who would ordinarily find themselves on the street, works with families to ensure that family units can stay together, supports community meal initiatives to bring together different Stoke-on-Trent communities, and does a lot of work on community cohesion, which is a particularly contentious issue in my city.
A smaller organisation, Savana, which I must declare is run by my ex-wife, although we are still on favourable terms—
Gareth Snell
No—I will give way in a second. Savana is the provider of the rape and sexual advice service in Stoke-on-Trent. It gets all its money from the Ministry of Justice; it is essentially running a Government service by virtue of contracts, yet it will now see an increase in its national insurance contributions of something between £16,500 and £17,000, which will reduce the number of people it can support with independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advocates. The other half of its money comes from the Home Office via the police and crime commissioner. Again, that is essentially public money providing a public service that just happens to be provided by a charity that is not covered by the rebate provided to other organisations.
Disability Solutions helps those who are entitled to additional support to access it. That charity brings millions of pounds a year into the city, which has a cumulative economic benefit, because the money brought in is spent on our high streets and in our local economy. The people it helps are not the wealthiest in my city; they quite often have very little in their pockets, and every penny that is given to them is spent in the local economy. They do not hoard it in a savings account, put it into the Cayman Islands or use it as a downpayment on a new car or furniture; they go out and buy food, shoes and school uniforms for their children, or they use it in one of the local entertainment venues.
North Staffs Mind faces an impact of £55,000. That organisation is specifically designed to help people with their mental health, which the Government have rightly identified as a huge inhibitor to economic growth, because if people cannot get their mental health sorted, they cannot get back into work. Another mental health organisation, Changes, wrote to me to say that these changes to national insurance would be unsustainable for them. Finally, the Dove Service is a bereavement counselling service that faces a cost of £2,000. All those organisations are filling a void in state provision in my city.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In essence, the hon. Gentleman has described what we on the Conservative Benches would have called the big society some years ago. Does he share my concern, however, that that huge bank of volunteers who often prop up and form the supports for the organisations he has described are likely to drift away as their organisations come under pressure? Not only will there be a financial pressure, there will be a pressure on the resource of people who are volunteering, because they will just say, “If the Government are not prepared to help us this one little bit, why should we help?”
Gareth Snell
I actually do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment, because in my city of Stoke-on-Trent, when there is need, people arrive to offer help. It is one of the things that people often say; we are a friendly, welcoming people, and if someone is in need, we roll up our sleeves and get stuck in.
However, I agree that although dedicated volunteers are excellent, they are not a replacement for staff. In particular, they are not a replacement for the highly trained staff who provide very bespoke services, such as some of the ones I have mentioned. There are thousands of volunteers across Stoke-on-Trent, and I thank every single one of them for every moment of their time that they donate, but as the hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency, we sometimes talk about voluntary organisations as if they have no costs associated with staff, because they are entirely volunteer-run. I think everyone across this House would recognise that that is simply not the case; if it were not for the cadre of professionals who help co-ordinate those volunteers, things would fall apart.
Although I have set out the challenges faced in my city, I am not necessarily drawn to some of the proposed amendments that would set differential rates for charities or other organisations. That is not because I do not believe those organisations should not be protected from the national insurance increase that is coming, but if we are saying that they should have a differential rate, why should that rate not be zero? Why should we not just exempt them entirely? I am also not convinced that we would not see people seeking to reorganise their own businesses to try to claim charitable status and reduce their own liabilities. Fundamentally, I believe that paying tax is a patriotic duty—if someone should, then someone must.
There have been record levels of settlements for the NHS, and I accept the points that have been made about hospices and GPs. I sincerely hope that Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB will make use of the better care fund, putting some additional money into that fund to pay for the social care that could help offset some of the national insurance increases that will make those jobs much more difficult. However, many of the organisations I have mentioned receive their operating budgets from Government, albeit passported through funds, a local council or another public body. They are essentially running Government services—they are running a public service on behalf of the Government. Is it not incumbent on us to make sure the services we ask them to provide are provided at the level we expect, and that we resource them efficiently? I would like to think that the difference between this Government and the previous one is that we value the work sufficiently that we will pay those organisations correctly and accordingly. If the Minister could address those points when he sums up, I would be most grateful.
Graham Stuart
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who I am pleased to say honoured his words at the beginning of his speech, quite rightly. I think that is because he has been in this House for some time and knows the difference between legislative intent and legislative outcome. No one believes that the Minister on the Front Bench or other Ministers wilfully want to damage GPs and hospices —how could anyone reasonably want to do that? However, that is the effect of this Budget of broken promises overall, and of the particular measure on national insurance contributions that we are debating today.
No one has really explored where this measure came from, but the genesis of it was actually a desire, in the pre-election period, to reassure those with long memories who thought that Labour was not a party of growth. In trying to reassure the nation that Labour was on the side of business, it was saying, “Economic growth is mission No. 1, so if you are an entrepreneur, you can relax, because we are on your side.” The other big fear about Labour Governments over time is that they will come along and raise people’s taxes. Labour therefore came out with very specific pledges and oft-repeated promises again and again, saying that it would not raise an array of taxes, including of course national insurance contributions. That is why Paul Johnson, who is an independent commentator, said that he thought this measure was an absolutely clear breach of that pledge.
On coming into power, the Government said there was this £22 billion black hole, and Labour Members have mentioned it again today. I think the hon. Gentleman was notable in not doing so, because he knows there is no substance to it.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman can intervene to rectify that in a moment if he feels the need to do so for reasons of tribal loyalty. Again, the OBR said there was nothing in its calculations that supported or validated—I think the word used was that it did not “validate”—the so-called £22 billion black hole, but let me give way to him so that he can rectify that omission.
Gareth Snell
The phrase damned by faint praise springs to mind. To be clear, I think the analysis of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the state in which we found the public finances is absolutely accurate. I think the remedies we are taking, while unpalatable to some, are necessary. I just wish we were able to mitigate some of the worst aspects of them.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and it is good of him to show that tribal loyalty. He did not criticise the OBR, but it said that it could not validate the so-called analysis. The £22 billion black hole does not exist, and it is quite clear from the OBR that that is true.
Let us, however, assume that the black hole is true: I think the Government are spending £1,270 billion this year, so let us assume that, in that £1,270 billion, this gargantuan black hole of £22 billion actually has veracity, while it does not. Having gone to the lengths of forcing even someone as up front and candid as the hon. Gentleman to feel obliged under tribal Labour rules to keep backing this measure, and having established the figure, one would think that the Government would want to come forward with a tax rise, if that is what they wanted to do all along. Alternatively, to give the Government credit, perhaps they came into office and found that things were much worse than was thought to be the case beforehand, in which case they would want to come up with a rational way of raising the funds with minimum possible damage.
I suggest it could be said to be a fib, but let us say there is a £22 billion black hole and they need to fill it. The Government should come forward with sensible tax plans. The Government have reneged on their pre-election promises, so why not renege on this one, and come forward with a sensible tax that does not particularly disincentivise those who are furthest from the jobs market? That is what the reduction in the NIC allowance to £5,000 does, and we know that it is particularly going to hurt people are struggling to get back into work, perhaps after a mental health episode, or perhaps because they are young and are struggling to get into the jobs market.
There may be worse taxes than the way this one will work out. I think £26 billion is the headline amount that will be raised and taken out the economy, but 76% of that in year 2 or 3—whichever it is—will come out of wages. By my rough arithmetic that means about £19 billion is going to come out of pay cheques, which is the very thing the Government were trying desperately to avoid doing. This measure will take £19 billion out of pay cheques, and because of the reduction in investment, the reduction in employment and the resulting reduction in profits, it will net only £16 billion.
Then the Government, having got that £16 billion, have decided to compensate the public sector, and we know about this because of the changes the OBR put out at the time of the election. It had to make a correction, because it had clearly been asked and told to allow another £800 million or £900 million for social care, recognising the issues that have been raised so powerfully by colleagues today. However, that was changed and removed, and it had to make an amendment to its response. By the time we have taken off the compensation as currently restricted to the public sector, which I think rises to about £5 billion, that takes the net receipts to £10 billion or £11 billion. That is a £26 billion hit to the economy, a reduction in investment, higher interest rates, lower growth, and £19 billion removed from working people’s pay packets—the people who Government Members believe they are on the side of—yet the measure nets only £10 billion or £11 billion to spend on public services. It is truly a ruinous approach to raising the money.
Mike Martin
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a more sensible tax strategy, and we all agree that the change to NICs is an extraordinarily bad idea, particularly given the hit to growth. Where would he raise that amount of tax from?
Graham Stuart
There are so many places where the Government have spent it. Having claimed this £22 billion black hole, they promptly agreed a £10 billion pay rise for their trade union backers. Train drivers on more than £60,000 a year are getting £10,000 pay rises while in talks about a four-day week. Those train drivers are not available for the holiday season, because they are so awash with that backdated pay increase that nobody wants to do any overtime. There are so many other areas. We have GB Energy to invest in renewable energy. I was the Energy Minister until April, and there was no shortage of investment available for renewables in this country. Before anyone points to last year’s failure to get offshore wind, that was because of the price window that we imposed. We did not want to overpay for it. There was no shortage of appetite, as was shown this year. One reason why we moved to an annual programme was precisely to ensure that we did not overpay, but could bring on all the renewables we wanted. There are so many areas where the Government could instead not spend the money that they have chosen to spend.
Fundamentally—we need this conversation, including in my party—one of the things that makes the Conservatives the most successful democratic political party in the history of the entire western world, I am proud to say, is that we believe in proper analysis and deferred gratification. We have to make sure that we have a growing private economy, because that is where wealth comes from. If we allow money to fructify in the hands of those who create wealth, it will duly come back to the Treasury with interest, as the Financial Secretary of Hong Kong said many years ago, in rather more pithy terms. The most important thing is to live within our means, and to recognise the importance of feeding the private sector economy, because it is only wealth from that sector that allows us to deliver the public services that we all want.
I support new clause 1. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made it clear that he has concerns about the Bill’s impact, and I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that impact. At the very least, we should look back and check that the impact is, as I hope it will be, more akin to the growth-producing, foundation-fixing, black hole-removing vision of the Government. However, if by any mischance the combined Opposition parties are right about the Bill’s disastrous impact on the most vulnerable, the people furthest from the labour market and the rest, we should find out the truth, and whether the Minister or his colleague the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is correct.
I also support amendments 13 to 18. The NHS is the centrepiece of the tax-raising and spending elements of this Budget, and this rise in national insurance contributions will contribute £22 billion—or £20 billion; I hear different numbers at different times, but I will stick to £22 billion—to the NHS. There are a couple of ways to sort out the problems, because the system is entirely dependent on social care provision, the hospice system and ancillary services, including primary care—the things that make up the NHS. In my area, when an ambulance goes to Hull royal infirmary, it may take an hour to get the patient in. That is because patients in the hospital cannot be got out of their bed—even though they are ready to leave—and into social care provision. The Bill will make that worse. Perhaps funding can be vired over to social care. Through the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), we are probing the Government and the Minister, who is a decent, honourable man. We are asking them to look at the issue creatively and ensure that the misgivings of those such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central are listened to.
Daisy Cooper
It is music to my ears to hear a Conservative Member of Parliament finally recognise the connection between the NHS and social care. The right hon. Member will remember that former Prime Minister Boris Johnson stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and promised to fix social care for good. Could he let us know why he did not?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady has not been in the House quite as long as I have. I was first elected in 2005, and in that Parliament I spent a lot of time—mostly in Westminster Hall, as I recall—in debates with then Labour Ministers talking about the importance of having a joined-up, coherent approach to the national health service and social care. It is clearly fiendishly difficult. The coalition Government, of which the hon. Lady’s party was a part, and the Conservatives kept working at it. We changed the name of the Department of Health to the Department of Health and Social Care precisely because of that. It is challenging, because social care is delivered through local authorities, but the opportunity is there. Before the Government get all that wiring and complexity fixed—we were working devotedly at that—they could vire funding over to the sector, or exempt from the Bill the sectors on which the NHS depends. Pouring money into the Hull royal infirmary while it is unable to unload the ambulances coming in, or get the healthier patients out, is a crazy approach. I am sure that the Minister recognises that.
I want to mention the impact on social care. Last Friday, I went to Merrywick Hall, a great example of a small, family-run, residential care home. Its 31 residents are not all elderly, but they all have learning disabilities. Some of them are elderly, making them doubly disadvantaged. The home charges a basic rate of just £699 a week to care for those people, and its staff are stretched. I met Katie, who runs the home, and her husband Carl, who oversees the finances, although the home is owned by another. It was quite clear that that they were not running a business in the way that I would recognise as a former businessman; they were running an institution that was absolutely committed to the welfare of the people in it. Between this jobs tax, which the Minister is foisting on us, and the national minimum wage increase, they have to find an extra £56,000 a year, which is equivalent to the care costs of 1.5 residents. That is the reality. That system and those places are vulnerable. If those places go, there will be a massive knock-on effect on the rest of the system.
I hope that hon. Members from across the House are less interested in the system—although it is our job to worry about it—and much more interested in the people. People cannot get much more vulnerable than the elderly who have learning difficulties.
Dr Luke Evans
When it comes to social care and GPs, there is a situation that has been described to me as Schrödinger’s care. Providers are seen by the state as being private, yet their services are commissioned solely by the NHS, which means that they are caught both dead and alive when it comes to NICs. This has happened either by design in the Treasury, or by accident. The answer from the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary—I expect the Minister to say this—is that funding will be allocated in the usual way. The problem is that that will happen in April, four months away, while decisions are being made now. There are potential closures, and certainly redundancies, or decisions not to employ. How will that be addressed? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to address that, because these institutions are listening now, and need to know that answer?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend, who is of course a doctor. In this and previous debates, such as Second Reading, it is good to encourage a discursive approach in the Chamber, if we are to be valuable. I hope that we will continue to gather in this Chamber, talking to each other and listening. No one would think less of the Government for making changes. I cannot speak for those on the Opposition Front Bench, but I would seek to give the Government some political cover if they found a way to ameliorate the impact of this measure on the system—and, more importantly, on the human beings on which the NHS relies.
In 2021, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, promised a plan
“to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 295.]
Yet all the analysis available to Government Members shows that those with the least will pay the highest price for this measure. In my constituency, HICA, a large not-for-profit provider of social care homes and in-home care—a brilliant organisation that has had the same chief executive for the past five years—was finally getting a surplus to invest in its stock, some of which is almost as old as me, and to give its staff something above the national minimum wage. But following the changes in the Budget, it faces a bill of £3.5 million, more than offsetting any hope of a surplus, which it desperately needs in order to invest in its people and stock. The money will be taken away from that good social purpose in my local area, and instead will go into the Chancellor’s mythical black hole—for payment of additional sums almost greater than the total income of many pensioners, and for pay rises, for train drivers, so that they can pay their union fees; and so that Labour Members can carry on all too rarely mentioning in the Chamber their sponsorship by people who dictate so much of what they share with us—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central aside.
Finally, it is interesting in these debates just how few of the more than 400 Labour Members—they can all cheer on the Government Benches at how many Labour MPs there are—want to come and defend these measures. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) spoke bravely, but he looked a little world-weary. I think he has been going out and about in his constituency, so I am sure that he is hearing the same thing as me, but said a little more angrily, because he is responsible for it.
I appeal to those Members who are not here to seek change. The 2012 Budget by George Osborne, crudely and rudely called the omnishambles Budget, included a measure to bring in 20% VAT on static caravans. The Treasury civil servants love dusting these things off—they hate an anomaly more than anything. Those are the very caravans that ordinary working people use to holiday on the coast. I did not, alongside colleagues, run my campaign in the press; instead, I built up support from Conservative Members and coalition colleagues, who realised how damaging that measure would be for jobs in their area, the holiday opportunities of ordinary working people, and an industry that is 95% manufactured in the UK. People told me, “Change is impossible—this has been announced in a Budget. You cannot overturn a Budget measure.” You and I, Madam Chair, having been here some time, know that that is not true. Politics is a matter of arithmetic. If Labour Members can build enough support among colleagues on the Government Benches—they do not need to do it publicly, and they do not need to tell us about it—they have every chance of changing this. The Whips and Ministers start getting spooked when 15 Members turn up. If Labour Members can get 30 or 40, they can make a change. They should not feel powerless.
The Government could make changes. They could move £3 billion or £4 billion over to social care, hospices, GPs and the like. They could agree to our amendments. They could come up with some other solution. They have the power to do it. Stubbornness and perhaps a certain arrogance has crept in because of the size of their majority. Government Members, who go out to talk to their constituents more frequently than Ministers, will be in a great position to tell Ministers that up with this they will not put.
Daisy Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is encouraging the Government to ameliorate their position. Does he agree that there is one very clear way of doing that today? Members on all Benches could vote for Liberal Democrat amendment 1, which excludes all GPs, dentists, hospices and charitable health and social care providers from this NICs increase.
Graham Stuart
Liberal Democrats did remarkably well at the election, pretty much on the back of sewage. Between water stunts and sewage, a record number of Liberal Democrats have been returned. I am pleased to say that the Conservative party remains His Majesty’s Opposition. Therefore, I urge the hon. Lady and her colleagues to support amendments 13 to 18, and new clause 1. She will find that exactly the same is achieved, but with the backing of His Majesty’s Opposition.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by thanking the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for all his work on the Bill.
The burden of tax has fallen disproportionately on the shoulders of working people for too long. Families across the country and in my constituency, who are already battling the cost of living crisis, have been left to carry the weight, while larger businesses and the wealthiest have been let off far too lightly. That cannot continue. This Labour Government believe in a fairer tax system, where larger businesses and the richest pay a little more in tax to help fund our NHS and our public services, which working people rely on. That is the right and fair choice.
The Tory record on investment in our NHS is terrible. I can see that in my constituency. Although Princess Alexandra hospital was on the list of 40 new hospitals proposed by the previous Government, when we came to power it turned out that the money for it was not there. I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for allowing me to constantly follow him around the Palace and lobby him on that point.
The decision on employer national insurance is difficult, but it is the right choice. Waking up on 5 July, we knew that we would have to take these difficult decisions, but in the long run we really will see the difference. Being tough now can bring about real change in the future.
It has not gone unnoticed that the small businesses and charities that form the backbone of our local economy need to be protected and valued. Here are a few things the Labour Government are doing to achieve just that. We have increased the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers. As a result, we will see two remarkable things: the OBR expects 250,000 employers to benefit from these changes and an additional 820,000 employers to see no change at all. We are seeking to strike a balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) mentioned Small Business Saturday. I recently visited a wonderful local charity called Stort Valley Gifting, a brilliant local business that sources local produce and makes up hampers. I have to declare an interest at this point, because that is where I am doing my Christmas shopping this year, but I would add that my predecessor, Robert Halfon, did the same thing.
Labour also recognises the vital role played by public sector employees in our schools, hospitals and councils. That is why we have committed to providing support for additional employer NIC costs, ensuring that our public services remain resilient and well-resourced not just for today, but for future generations. We can protect working people while making the wealthiest contribute their fair share, so that we all contribute our fair share. Everyone from every walk of life is included as these decisions are being debated and made. We can choose to invest in our NHS and our public services; we can choose growth and fairness; we can choose to rebuild the future for generations to come, instead of the instability that has held our country back for too long. If we want the benefits of this Budget, we must make the hard decisions to get there.
Dave Doogan
I rise to speak to defend Scotland’s NHS, including our GPs, hospices, care homes and nurseries, from this Labour Government’s national insurance tax hike, as well as to protect the charity and higher education sectors. I am proud of the amendments the SNP has tabled to the Bill to protect these vital services from the increase in national insurance contributions put forward by the Government. The fears are genuine and escalating over the job cuts and service reductions that will be the inevitable and plain and simple consequence of this fiscal madness.
We in the SNP have consistently highlighted the brutal impact that Labour’s tax rises will have on GPs, charities, care homes and other sectors, with organisations warning that deep cuts will be made to the services they provide—vital services that are no less essential to communities and individuals than secondary care services just because they are received in the community or from a charity. That is why we have tabled amendments 4, 5, 6 and 26 in my name and the names of SNP colleagues.
On higher education, the University of Edinburgh was last month reported to have opened a redundancy process for staff as a result of Labour’s tax hike, and Universities Scotland is warning of a potential £45 million tax burden for Scottish universities. Yet again, we see key sectors of the Scottish economy hammered by a London Treasury out of touch, out of ideas and, if this goes through, demonstrably out of control. Higher education, agriculture, and oil and gas are all demonstrably larger elements of the Scottish economy than they are of the English or UK economy. This Government, with NICs and other specific tax increases or allowance removals, are hammering particularly important elements of the Scottish economy. As usual, what England wants Scotland gets.
The Labour Government’s national insurance increase will be a disaster for Scotland’s healthcare providers, voluntary organisations, nurseries, universities and colleges, but who on the Labour Benches has come along to speak up for those organisations in Scotland? Nobody. Not one Labour Scottish MP made a speech to protect Scotland’s interests. But Labour MPs from Scotland were there to nod through and vote through the cut to the winter fuel payment, freezing Scotland’s pensioners; Labour’s bedroom tax, entrenching poverty in Scotland; Labour’s two-child limit, punishing the poorest in Scotland; taxing Scotland’s oil and gas sector to the brink of extinction; attacking Scottish agriculture; and gouging Scotch whisky. They were all here to make sure that that happened and to speak to that, so I will leave the people of Scotland to draw their own conclusions about this particular lack of activity from Scottish Labour MPs.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When did the SNP do an about-turn on Scottish oil and gas? As far as I can tell, it seemed as opposed to its continuation as the Labour party is now in government.
Dave Doogan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I refer him to Hansard from the previous Parliament. The comments I have just made are entirely consistent with the comments I made in the last parliamentary term.
With each day that passes, we learn more about the damage Labour’s Budget will inflict on household bills, businesses and charities, yet despite those warnings the Labour Government are determined not to listen and are ploughing ahead with this devastating proposal. The SNP will always stand up and protect Scottish jobs, Scottish services and Scotland’s people. That is reflected in John Swinney’s budget—a balanced budget in the interests of the people of Scotland and the businesses of Scotland. That is the SNP way. We have done it this year and we have done it in every one of the 17 previous years we have been in the Scottish Government.
Do the UK Government understand how commissioned services work? We have heard that quite a lot this afternoon and it is becoming increasingly clear that, at best, they have a sketchy understanding of why vital services are provided by non-statutory service providers. What is going to happen when this measure unwinds into the real economy is that charities, GP surgeries, hospices and other vital elements of healthcare provision will not have reserves. They are already operating at the very margins of financial sustainability, so when the sums do not add up, they will have two choices. They will approach the commissioning authority that has commissioned their services to ask for an uplift in their fees. The answer will be no, because the money is not there. Alternatively, they will withdraw their services or draw down their services. Either way, it will be enormously challenging and extremely damaging for some of the most vulnerable in our society.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. The Labour party has said in the main that it is the right choice to increase NICs. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland’s health and social care will be hardest hit. The Northern Ireland children’s hospice estimates that half a million pounds will be needed to cope with the NICs increase. This is a hospice that provides care for the most vulnerable in our society: children with cancer and children with life-limiting conditions. Does he agree that the measure will see the end of these excellent services, which are much needed in our communities?
Dave Doogan
I agree entirely with the hon. Member. There is no road back from that. The difficulty that I implore the Government to pay attention to is that when the damage that will be inflicted by this measure is inflicted by this measure, they cannot just say, “Oops, we got that wrong. If you wouldn’t mind all coming back and start delivering these commissioned services, we’ll admit we got it wrong.” When it’s gone, it’s gone. It is not acceptable that the Government are playing fast and loose with the safety net that exists in our communities and our society to catch the most vulnerable people and prevent absolute chaos. That is exactly what the Government are doing.
However, the Government should not take the hon. Lady’s word for it, or mine. We can listen to people who are at the coalface. This is primary evidence from the Scottish Huntington’s Association:
“The entire charity sector is increasingly burdened by climbing costs, funding issues, recruitment and retention challenges and an increased demand for services.
All too many have had to close their doors, with more expected to follow. Additional burdens being imposed by government at this juncture”,
the association says, are deeply unhelpful.
“Coming just weeks after the prime minister announced a ‘new partnership that can harness civil society’s full potential’ this must surely be an unfortunate oversight, and one that simply cannot be allowed to stand given the scale of its implications for the not-for-profit sector and the many thousands of people who depend upon it in the absence of alternative statutory services.”
It is not just the association that takes that view. Turning Point Scotland has advised that this measure alone will add £1.1 million to its costs overnight, and it comes at a time of a pressured environment, when many of its services are already running at a deficit. That is true of the voluntary sector, but also of the nursery and college sectors.
On healthcare, I wonder whether the Government understand the concept of whole-system costs. As I and many Members have said, when charities fold, as many of them will, the services that they were providing will no longer be there. Who will then provide that care? It will be the provider of last resort, secondary care. People will present themselves at hospitals, where there will be no room. It will be chaotic, but in a purely Treasury and fiscal sense, it will be an extremely expensive form of chaos, for which the Government, through the whole-system paradigm, will need to pick up the costs. I am not certain that the Minister has been properly briefed by his Treasury officials on what the risk assessment actually says about the human and financial costs of the change when this heads south. This is what happens when the Chancellor treats the real economy as her own personal political piggy-bank. It will not be possible to fix this once it has been broken.
I have some sympathy for the Minister in one respect. We have heard, and I will not repeat, the headline figure—the gross quantum that the Government expect to generate by lowering the threshold and increasing the rates of employer national insurance. By the time everyone who is in a position to adjust their business and employment characteristics to accommodate it has done so, by the time the Government have compensated elements of the public sector and by the time the economy has contracted to accommodate that, we are already down from £25-something billion to £10 billion-odd. That is a lot of pain to accept to gain £10 billion.
If the Government were to exclude or make provision for hospices, nurseries, the voluntary sector more generally and universities, that £10 billion would be reduced to an embarrassingly small figure, so they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I nevertheless encourage them to have the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the people of these islands first, rather than the political expediency of careering headlong towards a cliff edge that is as plain as the nose on the end of your face and jumping over it anyway in order to save face—because the Government will not save face. There is no escape from the corner they have painted themselves into. They can either U-turn and incur the political costs, which I would recommend, given that they have just come through the door—they should be at the height of their political powers, but if this is the height of their political powers, goodness me!—or they can carry on regardless, and pick up the pieces of all the chaos that will be wreaked across the sector.
This incompetence, for it is incompetence, did not start when the Government walked through the doors of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street. It started back in the election campaign, when they proscribed the use of the single biggest lever in the Treasury’s toolkit to get additional funding. They said that they would not increase income tax on ordinary working people, although with these measures they will take away financial opportunities and, actually, people’s money through payroll changes anyway. It is smoke and mirrors. However, by painting themselves into that corner on income tax, they have created a situation in which they have to make the most damaging tax intervention possible, which is entirely contrary to their stated ambition of generating growth.
Quite a lot of Labour Members have said, “It’s all very well listening to the Opposition, but what would you do?” I will give them two really easy things that the Government could have done. If they had mirrored the income tax thresholds that the Scottish Government have introduced, they would have generated £19 billion. That would not have had a single impediment on the real economy, would not have choked off growth and would not have put primary care on the precipice. They could have done that. Or, if they had thought that they could get by on less than £19 billion—they will have to, because they will raise less than £10 billion from this measure—they could have just reversed the previous Government’s two cuts to employee’s national insurance. Judging by the arithmetic in this place, the Conservatives did not exactly get a brilliant political return on cutting employee’s national insurance twice in two quarters of one financial year. The Government could have reversed those cuts, which would have netted £10 billion—roughly where they are now, on aggregate—but no, they did not want to do that and they refuse to do so.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The crux of today’s debate is an interplay between our objectives and missions as a new Government and our inheritance from the previous Government. It is about the choices we have taken to achieve our objectives while mitigating and navigating the dire inheritance we received.
First, our objectives were clearly stated to the British people in our manifesto in July:
“to begin the work of national renewal. A rebuilding of our country, so that it once again serves the interests of working people.”
Secondly, the previous Administration bequeathed us the following: the highest tax burden on working people since the second world war; an economy built on weak foundations, with little or no industrial strategy, low productivity, low investment and low strategic visions; public services on their knees, having been cut to the core; staff undervalued and underpaid, but overburdened due to the previous Government’s failure; and after the cuts and chaos came that cut-and-run election, with unfunded spending commitments and, yes, a £22 billion black hole.
I turn to the choice that we face. The people resoundingly rejected a return to the chaos and cuts of the previous Administration. We rejected making further cuts to services when the people who voted in the election need those services so desperately. We rejected insulting people by increasing taxes on their pay packets after those dark, high-tax Tory days. We rejected increasing borrowing; we are keeping it under control with our stability rule in order to bring the current Budget into balance, so we will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending.
Therefore, we have had to take difficult choices. Some groups will have to contribute more, which is never popular. We are asking employers, not employees, to contribute more, but we fully recognise the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities. We have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers, including charities. The OBR expects 250,000 employers to gain and an additional 820,000 to see no change.
The change that we are debating today should be seen in the context of the overall Budget—a Budget of huge, long-term investment in our economy; setting the right environment for better jobs, more opportunities for businesses, stronger public services and a more confident, optimistic future, particularly for our young people.
The last Government were very good at some things: kicking the can down the road, finding carpets and sweeping things underneath them, and making promises while dressed in the emperor’s new clothes. This Opposition are good at crying crocodile tears about the changes we are making, and wanting to have their cake and eat it. They seem to want all the benefits, but they do not want to say how they would pay for them. That is not this Government’s approach.
What is being proposed today is reasonable and proportionate; it is necessary, given our objectives and the inheritance we received; and it is part of a transformational Budget that will put the economy, our public services and our country on a proper footing, for a fairer and more prosperous future for the people of our country.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an optometrist. I will speak to amendment 7, which stands in my name, which calls for GP surgeries, pharmacists, the often forgotten profession of optometrists and other health professionals to be excluded from the national insurance rise, along with charities with fewer than 50 employees.
We have seen the over-strain and burden on our GP services being taken over fantastically by the Pharmacy First programme. However, the National Pharmacy Association has voted for action, which could include reducing opening hours, in response to the increased costs that will be caused by the national insurance hike. This hike is going to cost each pharmacy business an estimated £12,000, which is absolutely unattainable for many of the pharmacists I speak to.
My constituency of Leicester South has the second-highest ratio of patients to GPs, with 3,260 patients to a single GP. This already overburdened service is going to be hit even further with this rise in national insurance, with the Royal College of General Practitioners warning in November that the national insurance hike risked GP practices making redundancies or even closures. Nearly 450 GP practices have already closed or merged since 2018, according to a survey by the GPs’ journal Pulse. This is simply an untenable state for the national health service and healthcare workers.
Pharmacists, dentists and optometrists employ their professional staff. Many people I have spoken to are now going to have to remove employment and bring in locums. I would like to ask the Minister whether any impact assessment has been made on the loss of earnings for employed staff if locum staff are brought in. Primary care services are the bedrock of the NHS and many are already on a financial tightrope due to years of austerity. The national insurance hike will see many community GPs, pharmacists and optical health facilities reduce services or completely close down.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
GPs such as those in the Twyford surgery in my constituency have made it clear that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will impact their budgets. They urgently need clarity to determine what they can provide for my constituents and whether they will be forced to make redundancies. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to provide certainty on whether GPs will receive funding for national insurance increases, and not abandon them, as they were abandoned by the previous Government?
Shockat Adam
I totally agree with the hon. Member that GP services are already on their knees, and this is going to further increase their despondency. It will give them no confidence whatsoever.
A second issue relates to our charities. I do not think there will be a single Member in this House who has not posed in front of a charity for a photo for their social media or for the work that they do. In my short time in this profession I have seen that this country is virtually run by charities, but every single year they have to jump through fire hoops just to make ends meet. They have to prove their worth and look for funding every year, living virtually hand to mouth. This will be the final nail in the coffin for many charities that are doing vital work for our communities.
There are so many that I could mention, but I will mention just one. Jasmine House is a charity in my constituency that provides vital support for women who have been victims of sexual violence. We already know the dire state of the judicial system, with women who have been raped having to wait up to five years or sometimes seven years for justice. This home, which provides much-needed psychological and emotional support, already has a two-year waiting list. This rise in national insurance will completely destroy this charity and many more like it across the country, which is why I urge the Government to rethink this disastrous policy and accept my amendment.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak once more on this critically important Bill, after an excellent debate on Second Reading several weeks ago. I do not wish to rehearse the entire debate on these national insurance changes, but I will raise a few points about the Bill and why it is necessary.
As we have discussed at some length, this Government inherited public finances that were in a parlous state and public services that were not delivering what residents in Dartford and across the UK need. Yet, from their contributions today and on Second Reading, I do not think that Conservative Members have really accepted that legacy. In the five stages of grief, they are still in denial.
When the previous Government left office—it is painful to repeat these statistics—NHS waiting lists were at 7.6 million, with 300,000 people waiting longer than a year for treatment. Those waiting lists were already growing before the pandemic, with the number of people referred but waiting for treatment doubling between 2010 and 2019.
On crime and community safety, neighbourhood policing was decimated and PCSO numbers were halved, and the number of arrests has halved since 2010, including sharp drops for theft. Perhaps most concerningly, we face a real crisis in our prisons. The National Audit Office recently confirmed:
“The current crisis in the prison estate is a consequence of”—
the previous Government’s—
“failure to align criminal justice policies with funding for the prison estate, leading to reactive solutions which represent poor value for money.”
That is as close as the National Audit Office ever gets to saying, “You wasted money.”
The previous Government also spent a whopping £715 million on their Rwanda gimmick over two years, in exchange for a sum total of four voluntary departures. That is the legacy of the Conservative party, yet Conservative Members still refuse to acknowledge their mistakes. They vote against every measure, including the national insurance changes to raise crucial funding to fix the problems they left behind, without ever saying which investments in public services they would scrap.
In a long and, at times, entertaining speech, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) rehearsed the greatest hits of the previous Government, in which the omnishambles Budget seemed to feature very strongly, but his speech was fatally holed below the waterline by his inability to answer one simple question from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin): “What would you do instead?” We heard a lot of flannel about train drivers, but that was basically it.
Graham Stuart
I talked about the need for fiscal discipline, one element of which is taking at least £12 billion of savings out of the benefits system, because we cannot continue with more and more of us out of work and out of the workforce. Most importantly, I also said that we have to grow the economy first, because that is the only way to sustain it. This Budget had the opposite effect, as the OBR has laid out.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that this debate in Committee is about national insurance contributions.
Jim Dickson
I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for his comments. He praised the Conservative party as the most successful party in western democracy because it always takes a pragmatic and hard-headed view of matters such as the public finances, but I am afraid that he has just revealed why it is no longer in government. None of what he said added up. The £12 billion of welfare savings that we were repeatedly promised when he was in government were never realised, and none of what his party has proposed since makes those numbers any more likely to be achieved.
This week, The Guardian reported on a poll by the University of Bristol of 5,000 voters—a large sample—that found that fewer than a quarter of respondents thought that the changes to tax announced at the Budget were “not necessary”. Nearly 50% of people polled thought the changes were “necessary”. So the British people, showing admirable common sense, understand the steps that need to be taken to address our country’s problems.
Based on that polling, the kindest thing to say about the Conservative party is that it is out of touch. Indeed, we learned this week that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently toying with the idea of flat tax, which would be a big gift to the already wealthy. According to estimates from the Tax Policy Associates, such a change would mean average earners would pay £1,200 a year more and those earning above £200,000 would pay £30,000 a year less.
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, but I remind hon. Members that in order to be in scope for the debate, the majority of their remarks need to address the issue in front of us, which is national insurance contributions.
Jim Dickson
Thank you for your advice, Madam Chair.
In closing, in raising national insurance, the Labour Government are taking the tough choices to fix our public finances. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill is a crucial part of our plan to fix the foundations of this country. It provides a major part of the funding needed to fix our public services after 14 years of decline under the previous Government.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When we talk about national insurance, it is easy to forget that it is only part of the tax burden placed upon employers. However, within the matrix of tax, the reach of national insurance that has been delivered by the change is truly shocking, particularly because of the reduction of the threshold to £5,000. I suspect that will mean that there is not a single person who does a part-time job whose employer will not now be paying 15% national insurance. Before we even come to the viability of the business they work for, that makes the viability of that job questionable.
To reduce the threshold by that amount is the most punitive part of the measure. It is not even tempered, as it could have been, by a phased reduction, so rather than paying 15%, someone could pay a lower amount, such as 5%, if the threshold was reduced to £5,000. The measure is excessively punitive and will hit many small businesses in everyone’s constituency, including mine.
I think of small businesses throughout North Antrim. They employ six, seven, eight or 10 people, and may stretch to take on an extra worker, but they will not be stretching like that any more. They will be stretching the other way, because the consequence of the measure is putting them over the edge in terms of what is affordable. I am talking not just about small businesses but about a vast swathe of a critical sector that keeps our society in operation. Our community and voluntary sector will be among those most cruelly affected and particularly those who are often doing the job of Government, delivering services in our community. They will bear it unabated, without any assistance such as the assistance that the public sector will have.
I was interested to receive and to read the report from the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, which is clear that whereas public sector organisations will have their budgets on this aspect reimbursed, voluntary and community sector organisations will not have the same protection. They will have to absorb the budget increase. Yet, as I have said, many of those in the voluntary and community sector deliver services on behalf of Government. The public sector therefore gets matters ameliorated, but those that deliver services for Government in the voluntary and community sector will not. That will have an effect not just on those organisations, but on the services they deliver and, therefore, on all our constituents to whom those services are delivered. When we ally 15% on national insurance with the increase in the living wage, we have a double whammy. The two together are the very thing that will produce a negative outcome.
The hospitality sector in my constituency, as a sector that already runs on relatively small margins and employs a lot of part-time people who will now fall within the ambit of employers’ national insurance, has drawn attention to the fact that the increase, along with the living wage increase, will impose a huge burden. Indeed, the sector’s organisation has suggested that the living wage and national insurance increases will add £2,500 a year for every employee. What business, in current circumstances, can simply shrug that off and carry on unaffected? There will be very few, indeed.
The consequences will be substantial and will affect many small businesses, be it the butcher on our high street, our community services provided by voluntary organisations, our doctors or our dentists. The latter are already under huge pressure and many are giving up national health service provision. Why? It is because they cannot make ends meet. Then, Government come along and put this burden upon them.
I therefore say to the Government that, yes, they have the numbers that mean they can close their ears to all of this. They can impose this if that is their will, but in imposing it they will do irreparable damage to those who they say they care about. This is a wake-up moment. If the Government truly care about ordinary people, whose jobs will be lost and who will be affected by this measure, and about ordinary businesses, which are not rolling in riches but making ends meet, they need to find a way to readdress this issue and to bring back some viability, going forward, for those businesses.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Like many on the Government Benches, I have spent many years of my career in business—in my case, as a lawyer. I have worked with some of the largest companies investing in the United Kingdom and some of the smallest companies in the country, such as charities, third sector organisations and others. What they value most of all is economic stability. What they do not value is huge increases in interest rates overnight and rampant inflation.
I understand how important it is to investors to ensure that the public finances are managed in a prudent way, which embraces and faces up to the realities. That is the foundation of the Budget and of our approach to the difficult decisions the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken on national insurance contributions. A number of the parties on the Opposition Benches, and the Conservatives in particular, criticise, but they broke Britain’s economy and we are left to clean up their mess. There is nothing clever or great about promising that hospital after hospital will be built and not having the funds to cover that. That is the politics of the Santa Claus letter.
The Budget of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivers on our commitments to the electorate. It puts an end to non-dom tax status and gets rid of a VAT exemption on private school fees to fund state schools, such as those in Glasgow. The national insurance contributions are an important part of that financial package. The Budget delivers a fairer, more sustainable tax system. Under the previous Government, the tax burden was placed mainly on the shoulders of working people. We heard from the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who represents a beautiful constituency, that that is precisely what SNP members are fans of—increasing income tax and national insurance on working people. We have seen that in Scotland time and again. The tax burden that working people face is absolutely enormous. If a person works in Newcastle and wants to move to Edinburgh, they will have to pay more tax to work in the NHS in Edinburgh. If that is supporting Scotland, who knows? We are delivering on our promise not to raise taxes on working people.
John Grady
I wish to make some progress if I may; I have been waiting a long time to speak.
Our plans will not see additional taxes coming out of a worker’s payslip. We are supporting small businesses by doubling the employment allowance before companies and charities have to pay national insurance, which will protect hundreds of thousands of employers from paying any national insurance at all.
According to the OBR, changes to the employment allowance will see 250,000 employers across the UK gaining from these changes, while an additional 820,000 or so will see no change. This means that around half of all businesses that are liable for national insurance will pay the same or less than they were previously, while, set against that, many businesses and charities in Scotland and Glasgow will be protected against the increase. This strikes a fair balance.
As a Scottish MP, I must turn to Scotland. The context of this national insurance rise is that around one in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list. On a Friday evening a few weeks ago, I was contacted by a constituent whose wife of 40 years was in hospital. He was petrified and devastated because there was no bed available for his wife after she had suffered a stroke. That is the context of this national insurance rise. It is correct to raise taxes to invest in our health service, and that is the beginning and the end of it. In Glasgow, this year, 172 teaching posts have been removed. That is the context of this national insurance rise.
Our Budget delivered the largest settlement for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution—£4.9 billion of additional funding and further funding to cover the national insurance rise over the next two years. This is a UK Government delivering for Scotland and giving the SNP the tools to clean up its mess. The changes to national insurance are critical to this additional funding, which will benefit the people, charities and businesses of Glasgow and Scotland.
Despite this extra funding, the SNP repeatedly criticises our Budget and our management of the public finances. This is—as some say of Christmas dinner—somewhat rich coming from the Scottish National party. After almost 18 years of the SNP Government in Holyrood, public finances are in a catastrophic mess. Let me provide a simple example: the replacement Arran ferries are hundreds of millions of pounds over budget and years late, making lives miserable for people trying to get from Arran and damaging the tourist industry. It would be unwise to choose Rod Stewart’s song “We are Sailing” for the SNP Christmas karaoke, because no one is sailing under the Scottish Government’s appalling management of the economy.
The SNP has criticised our choices. This Government have not been in power for even six months. The Tories were in power for 14 years and the SNP have been in power for 17 and a half years. On any view, the criticism of our Budget after nearly six months defies logic, but that defiance of logic does not end there. The Conservatives criticise our choices, but they do not say what they would do instead. They may have a shopping list of additional spending commitments, but they simply do not explain how they will tax or fundraise those spending commitments. This is not serious.
We are having to make difficult decisions. The Government are asking employers to contribute more. That will enable investment in public services, which is good for employers. We are being straightforward about the choices regarding the public finances, spending, tax and national insurance. I say to Opposition Members that cakeism is for Christmas. It is not an approach for serious Government or serious Opposition. The job of a serious Government is to make serious choices to progress the country—choices that will allow us to invest in our public services.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Government knew that if they raised national insurance contributions in the Budget, it would be devastating for health and social care. That is why they exempted the NHS; they knew that it would be put under acute pressure by the Budget. They did not exempt some of the key partners that deliver health and social care in this country, that they will rely on to move people out of acute care and into community care, and that they will rely on to achieve prevention rather than cure—all things that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care says he wants to do. They will rely on GPs, pharmacies, hospices and social care, yet the national insurance contributions fall on them.
Hospices will pay £260 million. According to Community Pharmacy England, pharmacists will pay £50 million. Social care will pay £2.4 billion. All that money will move across to the NHS, which is largely slanted towards acute provision. That runs completely counter to what the Health Secretary said he wants to do. His answer to those GPs, pharmacists and hospices who are deeply concerned is, “We will deal with this in due course.” “Due course” means “We have absolutely no idea and no plan at all.” He and, indeed, Treasury spokespeople say that they will deal with hospices in the usual contracting way.
The contracts of hospices like Mountbatten just outside my constituency on the Isle of Wight are with the integrated care board. They do not have a contract with Government, the Department of Health and Social Care or an NHS employer. Under those contracts, there is no clause for uplift of salary, or for recovering the increased cost of national insurance contributions. Saying, “We will deal with it in the usual way through contracting” shows either a complete lack of understanding of how hospice services contract with the public sector, or a complete indifference, disregard and, frankly, contempt.
As for other sectors of the economy, national insurance increases hit those who employ people—sectors that rely on larger workforces, such as hospitality and tourism, which my constituency on the Isle of Wight is heavily reliant on. This is a tax on working people, because it disincentivises employing working people, and even the OBR says that 60% of the impact will likely be felt by those on lower wages. It also says that growth will peak next year at 2%—in fact, that is the Treasury’s own figure—and then it will fall away for the rest of the decade. This is not a growth Budget. As for those working in hospitality and tourism, many of whom are seasonal or part-time workers, they will be brought into the national insurance tax regime for the first time.
Brilliant businesses in my constituency, such as the Yarbridge Inn in Brading, the Spyglass Inn in Ventnor, and all the independent hotels in Sandown, Shanklin and elsewhere, will be squeezed further, right at the time when they are trying to recover from covid, and when our tourism and hospitality sectors are competing with cheaper, overseas holidays. The sector is already heavily taxed compared with hospitality and tourism elsewhere in Europe. This is an unpatriotic tax, because it disincentivises the visitor economy and tourism in Britain.
I urge the Government to go back and look again at providing relief to hospitality and tourism, as well as to health and social care. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, there is no shame in the Government recognising their mistakes in both sectors, and coming up with genuine relief for health and social care and for tourism and hospitality.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I very much welcome the chance to speak in this debate on an important topic. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will be glad to know that this is the first speech of mine that is not subject to a time limit, so I can speak for as long as humanly possible on the intricacies and joys of national insurance contributions, and I hope to stay on the topic at hand.
Not having a time limit also gives me the chance to make a great parliamentary speech on this important topic. We all know what good speeches look like; they are not a simple list of points reeled off in order, but may include great rhetorical flourishes, the use of the English language at its finest, and nuanced arguments. But, Madam Chair, I will make six simple points, in list form, in favour of the national insurance changes before us. I have missed my opportunity, but maybe I will make such a speech in future.
These changes are incredibly important. I urge Opposition Members to vote with the Government against the amendments, so that we can get the changes that we need for our country. The first reason that I think the changes are important and sensible is that they will mean that the Labour Government stick to the pledge we made in the election campaign not to increase taxes on working people. It is important that we rebuild trust in our politics, which has fallen to a record low. I know that this is contested in the House, but Labour is clear that these specific changes protect working people’s payslips and mean that we do not have to make the changes that others have suggested for income tax and value added tax. Trust in our politics is very important.
The second reason I encourage Members to vote with the Government tonight is that the changes provide vital funding for our public services. I am not too sure whether Conservative Members—I would be interested to hear from them—support the additional funding for public services. I said this in the previous debate on the Bill, so I am a bit like a broken record, but if they do support additional funding, would they raise it through additional borrowing or different tax rises?
Dan Tomlinson
Before I have even heard the hon. Member’s request to intervene, I happily give way.
Joe Robertson
I can offer the hon. Member a solution for growing the tax base: grow the economy. That is by far the best way of increasing the tax take. This Budget does not grow the economy—that is the problem.
Dan Tomlinson
I will come to growth, which is the sixth point on my very exciting list, but I will just say that this Budget will see growth increase in the short term and stay broadly unchanged over the forecast period, and the OBR says that the increased public sector investment that we are making will lead to a small but significant increase in growth in the long run. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member that we need economic growth in this country.
It is important that we provide the revenue to fund our public services. I will not repeat the convincing and powerful arguments made by Labour Members about the broken nature of our public services. In Chipping Barnet, policing is really struggling, and 100,000 people in the Royal Free London NHS foundation trust area are waiting to be seen by our local hospital. We need to provide funding in a sustainable way.
The third point on my exciting list of reasons to vote with the Government tonight is that these changes provide stability. We all know that we need economic stability—it is the foundation of the economic growth that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) just made an important intervention on. I believe that the Chancellor and the Treasury team made the right decision, even though it was difficult, to raise revenues to fund our public services and put our public finances on an even keel once again. This change means that over the coming years, we will get to a place where, for the first time in a very long time, day-to-day spending will be matched by the tax revenues that are coming in. I think all Members of the House will agree that that is important, but I know that Labour Members prioritise that stability, which has been lacking for too long.
Fourthly, these changes cut taxes for the smallest businesses—a quarter of a million businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) made clear. Again, I am interested to know whether Opposition Members support or oppose the cut in taxes for the smallest businesses that this Budget provides.
Fifthly, we have prioritised sound public finances, which is a big change from recent years. The mini-Budget that was passed by Liz Truss contributed to pushing up interest rates in our economy, making things more difficult for families in my constituency and across the country. It also added not £6 billion, or even £16 billion, but £60 billion to Government borrowing costs each year—Members can see those numbers in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report. That and other failures to manage our public finances over the past 14 years have driven up our public debt from £1 trillion, as it was in 2010, to £2.8 trillion, which I believe was the latest estimate from the Office for National Statistics. If we support additional spending on our public services, it is vital that we also make the right decision to raise revenue that will cover that increase in public spending, so that we can have the sound public finances that the public want from this Government.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Can the hon. Member explain why his Government are choosing to raise taxes on GPs’ surgeries, which did not crash the economy or the public finances, rather than opting to raise the revenue from the big banks, as the Liberal Democrats suggest?
Dan Tomlinson
We have made changes to a whole range of taxes in the Budget, and it is important to note that the scale of revenue that the Liberal Democrat party is talking about would not cover the additional funding that we are providing—£20 billion for our health services and additional funding for a whole range of public services. I understand that in the coming weeks, the Health Secretary will come forward with more details on many of the vital services that Members have mentioned today. I must put on record that I very much enjoyed meeting GPs in my constituency over recent weeks. They raised a whole range of issues with me, including the big challenges they have faced over the past 14 years in getting the support and funding that they need. I hope and trust that in the coming weeks and months, this Government will put that right.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East will enjoy my final point. My sixth reason for voting for this Bill, rather than for the mistaken and erroneous amendments that have been tabled, is that the changes we have put forward in this Budget, including on national insurance, will pave the way for higher growth and higher living standards. As in all good speeches, this last point brings together some of the other points made—so this may not have been just a boring list. Through ensuring economic stability and funding our public services properly, we will make sure that people get the health services that they need, so that they are not struggling with ill health that drives them to economic inactivity and pushes them away from the jobs market. We will make sure that people feel secure on their streets, and that businesses feel safe, rather than struggling with shoplifting, which has become all too rife. Those are the changes that this Budget and the measures in this Bill provide.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, particularly on the subject of growth. He, like me, is an avid reader of the Labour party manifesto, so he knows that sustained economic growth is the first mission of this Government. I think we all agree on the point that sustained economic growth is a really good thing, so could he simply tell us whether he thinks these national insurance changes are pro-growth or anti-growth? It is a very simple question.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member kindly for his intervention. I am not sure whether all Members know this, but the Labour party chair has appointed me as the growth mission champion, so I am very much in favour of economic growth. We can see the impact of the changes in the round at the Budget, leading to higher growth in the short term and further growth in the long run, which is very important.
Without the changes in this Bill and in the Budget as a whole, we will not be able to turn the page on the low growth we have experienced as a country over the last 14 years. Productivity growth since the financial crisis has been at just 0.2%, which is why we had the longest squeeze on wages since Napoleon was making his way around Europe on the Conservative party’s watch. We need to turn that around and make sure that we provide the foundation of stability, fund our public services and, yes, support some of the very smallest businesses with these changes, so that we can get the economic growth that Members on all sides, including growth champions, would very much like to see in the years ahead.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I have to start by disappointing the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), in that I rise to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). I will speak about my deep concerns about the proposed national insurance changes because of the real-world impact they will have businesses, GP surgeries, community organisations and vital care services in my constituency of Lewes. While I recognise the fiscal pressures, which have been mentioned by a lot of Members, I ask that we fully consider how these changes will affect those working tirelessly to keep our communities vibrant, secure and healthy.
GP surgeries are the frontline of the NHS. A local GP practice in my constituency has been in touch with me just today to describe its shock at discovering that it will be paying at least £60,000 more a year under these changes. GP practices provide vital healthcare services to our local population and in doing so are under ever-increasing pressures. Yet under the new proposals, GP practices are treated as if they are private businesses capable of absorbing significant cost increases. The reality is, of course, quite different. Every additional £1 spent on national insurance is £1 that is not spent on patient care, staffing or critical medical equipment. For practices already operating under immense strain, this extra burden could be the tipping point that pushes them towards unsustainable financial territory. When cutbacks occur, it is our communities that will lose vital healthcare access, and the NHS, which is already stretched, will be left struggling even more.
We must also acknowledge that our social care providers, including hospices such as St Peter and St James hospice, which looks after my constituents so well—I visited it recently—are caught between rising wages, fixed local authority fees and higher national insurance. They cannot pass on these costs without threatening their very viability. If care providers close or scale back, the most vulnerable in our community will suffer, and so will our healthcare system as hospital stays lengthen and A&E attendances rise. In other words, it will drive up costs for the NHS, making the system less efficient and less humane. It is particularly galling that NHS employers are set to be compensated for the changes while there is no equivalent commitment for the social care sector. Separating social care reform from NHS support will not only hurt vulnerable people today, but make it impossible to achieve strategic priorities for the health service tomorrow.
We must also consider community organisations. Take the Sussex Community Development Association in my constituency. It is a local organisation that reinvests every penny of surplus into essential services such as youth work, emergency food provision and childcare for deprived communities in my constituency. It is already contending with increased wage costs, and it now faces an estimated additional £70,000 per year due to the national insurance rise. Because of its size, it does not qualify for allowances that might soften the blow. This facility was invested in to deliver Sure Start services under a previous Labour Government, and it is now considering cuts to essential services thanks to this one. It now faces a desperate scramble for funding at a time when its services have never been more crucial.
The rise, coupled with the increases to the national living wage and the minimum wage, will hit the early education and childcare sector particularly hard. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for childcare and early education, I must make the Committee aware of how dire the situation is. An average nursery will face additional staffing costs of nearly £40,000 a year due to the increases. That is because staffing costs account for 75% of nurseries’ running costs, compared with just 30% for the average restaurant. If Government funding rates do not cover the gap, parents will face higher fees, potentially leaving them to reduce their working hours or to leave the workforce altogether.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that private nurseries delivering Government-funded hours may not be eligible for employment allowance. That means that they may not receive the intended financial support from the Government. The sector is already facing recruitment challenges, with 29,000 new staff needed by September 2025 to deliver the promised 30 hours of funded childcare. The national insurance changes could lead to recruitment freezes, reduced staff training and even nursery closures. That is the precise opposite of what this Government claim they want to see for working parents and carers. That would have a detrimental effect on families and the economy, hindering economic growth, and it could seriously impact the Government’s commendable aim of having half a million more children hitting early learning goals by 2030.
Finally, let us not forget that even successful local businesses are feeling the strain. Rathfinny, a renowned Sussex wine producer in my constituency that has invested in our local economy and environment, faces a significantly higher national insurance bill. It may be forced to slow its growth, reduce investment or even curb local employment opportunities, undermining the prosperity that benefits us all. This Government talk about economic growth, as Government Members have done today, but this tax increase will inhibit the ability of many British businesses to expand and flourish.
If introduced without nuance, these national insurance changes risk delivering a series of damaging shocks to my community and places across the country. I urge the Government and the Minister to reconsider, to review the thresholds, to consider exemptions for sectors that cannot pass on costs and to ensure that our GP practices, childcare providers, community organisations and valued local employers are not left shouldering burdens they cannot bear. I implore the Government to recognise the unintended consequences and to commit to measures that will preserve local jobs, sustain our community services and uphold the quality of care we offer our vulnerable citizens. I hope that the Government will do more to ensure that this tax increase does not harm the very communities and services we have pledged to serve and protect.
David Chadwick
The Liberal Democrats agree that the country’s finances are in a mess thanks to the previous Conservative Government. However, we do not agree that increasing national insurance is the way to address the problem, as doing so will undermine efforts to improve public services across the United Kingdom. For example, last month Care Forum Wales issued a stark warning that the rise in national insurance could cause a collapse in the social care system in Wales, creating a £150 million funding gap. Social care in Wales is already on its knees. Over the past four years, 40 Welsh care homes have closed. If yet more are forced out of business due to increased costs, we will have even fewer social care spaces available. We know that the scenes of ambulances left queueing for hours outside our hospitals are the result of them being unable to discharge patients due to shortcomings in social care.
It is not just care homes that are affected, but primary care too. Our GPs, dentists and pharmacies will suffer from this tax rise. A local GP practice in my constituency told me that it will have to cut one day of practice nurse time and one day of GP time from April 2025. That is a direct result of the projected £30,000 increase in its national insurance bill, alongside an overall lack of funding for GPs. A second surgery is projected to have an increase in its NI bill greater than £100,000 in April 2025. Both are clear that without an exemption for health and social care providers, the NHS in Wales could face collapse. It already has the worst outcomes of any nation across the United Kingdom.
Charities and local authorities will suffer too from this decision. In my constituency, the chief executive officer of Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations has stated that the national insurance increase will
“place considerable financial pressure on voluntary sector organisations, many of whom are crucial partners in delivering essential services.”
That is the reality of the decision taken by the Government to use such a blunt tool to try to fix the nation’s finances. Many of my constituents are asking why Labour has chosen to go after the small businesses, charities, and health and social care providers rather than target the big banks, the oil and gas giants, or the social media giants. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision to raise income in this manner and to make exemptions for the health and social care sectors as well as for charities.
Sammy Wilson
The outcome of the debate is of course inevitable: we know that when we go through the Lobby, we will be smashed by the overwhelming strength on the Government side, not because their arguments are strong but because of the parliamentary arithmetic. I suspect that even the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who indicated in her speech that this measure will hit especially labour-intensive services that employ low-paid people and are vital to the smooth running of the economy, will walk through the Lobby with the Government. Some people might say, “Is that not just the politics of despair?” It is important that the arguments made are at least challenged, despite the fact that, because of the parliamentary arithmetic, it may not come to anything.
I do not actually have a political point to score here, because the DUP will never be the alternative Government in this place—though the country is the worse for it. I therefore hope that all the predictions made here today and by independent bodies that have looked at the impact of the Budget are wrong. I hope that we do not find that small employers have to go out of business, that recruitment goes down, that the real wages of those who are employed—especially at the lower end of the wage spectrum—are cut, and that the services that are so vital to the health service are impacted on. I hope that all those things do not happen. I hope that economic growth is not impacted by it, but all the economic evidence, the economic logic and the forecasts made indicate that the arguments made against this measure by Opposition Members are correct.
Dan Tomlinson
My understanding is that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that growth will be higher in the short term, broadly unchanged over five years and higher in the long term.
Sammy Wilson
We have seen over the last five months that growth has already been impacted. Of course, the OBR has indicated that in two and three years’ time, growth will be impacted negatively as well. I do not think that one can hide behind those arguments. As I said, I hope that I am wrong, but I suspect that all the economic logic on the impact of this measure and what we are already hearing from employers indicate that that is not the case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The reality is that those who own businesses in my constituency tell me that they will have to look at reducing wages and reducing numbers. Because of the Government’s policy, those working in doctors’ surgeries will have to look at a reduction in numbers as well. Whether Government Members like it or not, this measure will impact on small and medium-sized businesses and on GP surgeries. That is the reality. The Government are to blame for a recession—there really is talk about it. If a recession comes, the Labour party will be responsible.
Sammy Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for his short speech to back up the points I have been making.
Let me look at some of the arguments presented today. The first is that the Bill will help to fix the NHS. I will not go into the arguments already made, but Members have made it clear that the NHS depends on primary services and, once people have gone through hospital, being able to discharge them into the community. The businesses that provide those services will be impacted by these tax changes. I am sure that there is not a Member here who does not already see that hospital beds are being blocked because there is insufficient capacity. People go into hospital and get mended but still need some respite before they go home, but the NHS cannot find places for them. If that is true now, then the situation will be even worse once these tax increases impact those businesses.
A&E is inundated with people who cannot get GP appointments. If the Government hit GPs, as has been outlined eloquently today, those services will be blocked and not available. Where do people go? They go to A&E. The Bill is meant to help the NHS, yet all the evidence from the people who support it and are part of the supply line say otherwise.
The Minister previously indicated that the people whose services are commissioned from the NHS can renegotiate those services and the payments for them. The very fact that the NHS is in difficulty and is having to be exempt from these national insurance changes is an indication that when they go with the bowl, they will be told that the cupboard is bare and no support will be given.
The second argument made today is that we need these changes to restore trust in politics, even though it was promised that working people would not be impacted. When evidence was given to the Treasury Committee, what did the representative from the Institute for Fiscal Studies say? They said that these changes will affect every working person. We cannot hide behind the argument that it is being done for the good of trust in politics. In fact, it will undermine trust in politics.
Another argument that was made is that we have no choice. The Government already made choices, even before this Budget. They chose to spend money even when they knew there was a black hole. They were spending the money that they want to raise from these national insurance contributions on wage increases, quangos and other things. Recently, they will not even tell us how much they are spending. The Energy Secretary went to COP and came back and told us of a £300 billion bill coming down the road for our sin of industrialising in the past, and he will not tell us how much we will have to pay. We gave away the Chagos islands, and we are going to pay for that but it is secret.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am enjoying listening to the right hon. Member. He is an esteemed former Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, so I defer to his experience. He is setting out his opposition to the measures in the Bill. Now that he has referenced the black hole, can he tell us what he would do to address the legacy of the previous Government?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I, too, enjoy listening to the right hon. Gentleman, but it would really help if he could continue to speak to the Bill at hand, and not make broader comments.
Sammy Wilson
The mentality is that with these national insurance increases we are imposing more taxes on small businesses and on all the sectors I have spoken about. I would ask the hon. Gentleman what spending decreases could have been looked at—have any productivity impositions been put on the public sector, for example? That should be the answer, rather than asking, “Who should we tax to pay for the black hole?” Instead, we should be asking how we can reduce and reprioritise the things that we do; looking at some of the things the Government do at present that they do not need to do, or that they could do better, or that they could save money on.
I listened with bemusement to the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who was relieved by a survey in The Guardian in which more than 50% of those surveyed were quite happy with this tax. If there are so many Guardian readers happy to pay more taxes, I am sure the Scottish National party would love them all to move to Scotland, because it might solve some of the problems they have. These are the kinds of strained arguments that we have had from Government Members.
They know the impacts the Bill will have. I am sure they are having the same conversations with their constituents as I have had with the people who have spoken to me in my constituency office—the small businesses, those in the hospitality industry, the GPs and those in the care sector and the charitable sector, who have come to me and told me the impact it will have on their organisation. I do not believe we can run away from this, despite what will happen when we vote later today.
I do not share the optimism of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) that somehow little cabals will form on the Government Benches—that they will all start whispering, and maybe 10 of them will go to see the Chief Whip, and then next week it will be 20, and then, by the time there are 50 of them going to see the Chief Whip, this will all change. I do not share that optimism. What I do hope, however, is that the predictions that have been made about the Bill will finally resonate with the Chancellor, and we will see a change in policy.
Carla Lockhart
In my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend, agrifood manufacturing is a big business base and a big sector. As he will know, many agrifood businesses are saying that these changes will increase their bill by £50,000, £60,000 or £100,000. On top of the death tax for family farms, that will absolutely decimate our agrifood sector. I urge the Government to pull back from this measure; otherwise, we will see the cornerstone of our economy destroyed.
Sammy Wilson
Of course, agrifood is another sector that I had not mentioned, along with hospitality, food processing, all the charitable sectors and some that are supporting the health industry—all are affected by it; they cannot escape it. I believe the impact will be far worse than what the Government are hoping for. Of course, as a result of the side effects of this measure, the revenue that is hoped for might not even be obtained.
Adam Jogee
For accuracy, I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I am far more likely to be seen reading the Antrim Guardian than The Guardian.
Sammy Wilson
I am pleased to hear it. I certainly do not read The Guardian, and I certainly do not share the view, held by some of its readers, that we should pay more taxes.
In closing, the Government have a huge responsibility to tax wisely and to spend wisely, and I do not think they have got that equation right. In fact, they are spending recklessly in many areas, and taxing recklessly as well. That will impact on their long-term objectives, but it will also impact on the lives of our constituents day to day.
The Chairman
I know that colleagues read about how we manage the Chamber, so they will know that I cannot put speaking limits on individuals contributing in Committee of the whole House. However, if the last two Members speak for around five minutes each, the Minister will have time to respond before we have to conclude business, so please be mindful of that.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I will shorten my speech on your guidance, Ms Ghani. I encourage all Members of the House to follow the example of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and sign up to the Antrim Guardian—a very good local publication from my constituency that carries good articles.
I rise to come back to the topic of the debate, employers’ national insurance contributions, because we have covered many subjects this afternoon. I support the amendments that look to alleviate the punishing implementation of, and increases to, employers’ NICs, especially for our family health service and social care providers. Unlike other speakers on the Opposition Benches who have looked to blame the Government for the increases, I do not think the Government are to blame. I think this is more about the Treasury than the whole Government.
I want to pick up on a point raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I have a lot of respect and sympathy for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). When he announced his 10-year plan for the national health service, there were three main platforms: to move from analogue to digital, to move from sickness to prevention, and to move from hospital to community. The increases to NICs for community-based health providers will put many of those services at risk and under pressure. This is where there is a disconnect between what the Government are trying to do and what they are actually going to do and achieve. I think that was the point described by the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). If we put the additional charges on our GPs, community pharmacies, opticians, domiciliary care providers and social care providers, that will come back, in a circular route, in how we fund our health service.
On the specifics for Northern Ireland, we are looking to transform and modernise a health service that has been largely underfunded and under pressure for quite a number of years, and trying to exist on single-year budgets since 2016. We are doing that by introducing multidisciplinary teams, where a general practice has a psychologist and a social worker all within its practice. General practices are asking for that to be extended across Northern Ireland, but the increase in ENICs will increase wage bills and pressures on the pharmacies and general practices that have already taken that step.
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness also made a point about the introduction of social care within the health service. We already have that in Northern Ireland, and 75% of the provision is done by the private sector. One thing this House needs to address, especially those on the Labour Benches, is that when we talk about private provision, they are not organisations making massive amounts of money. In my constituency they are often family-run social care practices that look after two or three homes. Nearly all nursing and residential care homes are privately owned too.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the problems in the social care market. However—this is a point I have made before—a lot of that is owing to the fact that nothing has been done since Andrew Dilnot’s report in 2011. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could point to where he has spoken out about that in the past.
Robin Swann
When I was Minister of Health in Northern Ireland—for four years—I looked to the Dilnot report, and I tried to introduce parts of it there because of the differential that exists: in our system, health and social care services are the overall responsibility of the Department of Health. I know what point the hon. Member may have been trying to make, but I think he failed to make it directly in that intervention. The impact of not only the Dilnot recommendations but the introduction of employers’ national insurance contributions on those services would actually run counter to anything that Dilnot was recommending, because he was talking about a funded, integral part of domiciliary care as part of the health service, which we already have, but that would put pressure on our health services at the moment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep his contribution to just a few minutes, so that the Minister has time to respond to all the Back Benchers?
Iqbal Mohamed
Everyone in my constituency, and indeed in the whole country, knows that the last Tory Government decimated public services after 14 years of austerity, mismanagement, negligence and a sole focus on the rich, at the expense and neglect of the poor working class and the public sector. I sympathise with the new Government, and I will try to provide constructive support.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcements in the Budget of increased investment in education, the NHS, infrastructure projects and other public services, but, like many other people in the House and throughout the country, I do not agree with the approach taken to the funding of those investments. Members on both sides of the Committee have indicated today that failing to protect key sectors and services such as general practices, care homes, pharmacies, childcare providers and third sector providers may have been an oversight or a mistake on the Government’s part, but I am not so sure. On the basis of the Government’s other blanket policies on abolishing the winter fuel allowance, imposing VAT on all private schools including low-fee and charitable schools and removing business rates relief from all private schools and charities without any announcement of safeguarding or compensatory measures to protect these services and sectors, it appears to have been a deliberate, or negligent, decision.
It is clear that the Government inherited a dire state of affairs that requires huge investment, which must be paid for in a responsible way. I am sorry to say that the way that has been chosen by this new Labour Government is not the right one. Viable and progressive alternatives are available to the Government to raise finances for the necessary investment rather than inflicting the increase in national insurance contributions on the impacted bodies. Let me suggest a couple of easy measures that would support the Government’s investment. One possible solution is the imposition of a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise the amount predicted to be raised by national insurance contributions; another is the closing of corporation tax loopholes that allow corporations to save billions and to offshore profits.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I am conscious that I have only a few moments to speak. I will not go through the four clauses of the Bill, as I take it that everyone will have read it already. I will instead go directly to the amendments that have been tabled, ahead of potential votes in a few moments.
I will address the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), and for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). These amendments seek to exclude certain sectors, including healthcare providers, educational settings and charities, from the new rate and threshold for employer national insurance. As hon. Members know, the changes in the Bill before us represent one of the difficult but necessary decisions that the Government have had to take to fix the foundations of our economy and our public finances.
James Murray
I cannot give way. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman many times in recent weeks, but I have about four minutes in which to address everyone’s comments.
As hon. Members have set out, we recognise that the changes we are making today will have an impact on employers. Making these changes was a tough decision that we did not take lightly, but we are also clear that the revenue raised from the measures in this Bill and others in the Budget will play a critical role in both restoring economic stability and getting the NHS back on its feet. As a result of the measures in this Bill and the wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week.
The Government will provide support for Departments and other public sector employers on additional employer national insurance costs, including central Government, public corporations and local government. Independent contractors, including primary care providers, social care providers, charities such as hospices and nurseries will not be supported with the costs. That is the same as was the case with the changes to employer national insurance rates under the previous Government’s plans for the health and social care levy.
Primary care providers—general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eye care—are important independent contractors that provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consults each sector about what services they provide, and about the money to which they are entitled in return under their contract. As in previous years, the issue we are debating today will be dealt with as part of that process in the round. The Department of Health and Social Care will confirm funding for general practice, dentistry and pharmacy for 2025-26 as part of the usual contract process later in the financial year, including through consultation with sectors.
I turn to adult social care. The Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of around 3.2% for 2025-26, including at least £680 million of new grant funding for social care. The funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector; again, they will be considered in the round.
Some hon. Members have tabled amendments to exclude charities from the new national insurance rate and threshold. However, it is important to recognise that charities can benefit from employment allowance, which this Bill has more than doubled from £5,000 to £10,500. That will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest. The Government also provide wider support for charities, including hospices, via a tax regime. This tax regime is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors that are worth just over £6 billion for the year to April 2024.
I recognise that some hon. Members have shown an interest in the impact of this Bill on childcare settings, as highlighted in the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for St Albans, for Grantham and Bourne, and for Lagan Valley, and in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). Early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible, which is why the Government committed in our manifesto to deliver the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents, and to open 3,000 new or expanded nurseries, by upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. Despite the very challenging circumstances that the Government inherited, the Chancellor announced in her Budget in October significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places. This means that the total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26.
New clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, specifically refers to the eligibility criteria for employment allowance. I can assure her that they have not changed, except for the removal of the £100,000 threshold, which will mean that more organisations are able to access employment allowance. The eligibility of a particular organisation will depend on the make-up of an individual business’s work, which can be determined following detailed guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. While every organisation will need to check its eligibility for the employment allowance, it is likely that many childcare providers will be able to access it.
Finally, I will turn to the amendments to exclude universities from the new rate and thresholds for employer national insurance. We greatly value UK higher education in creating opportunity, being an engine for growth in our economy and supporting local communities. The Budget provided £6.1 billion of support for core research and confirmed the Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement. The Secretary of State for Education has confirmed that the maximum fees in the academic year 2025-26 will rise, for the first time since 2017, from £9,250 to £9,535. This was a difficult decision, which demonstrates that the Government are serious about the need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing. I would like to continue, Madam Chair, but I should stop now—
James Murray
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill seeks to put into law one of the toughest decisions we made at the Budget in October. As I set out in earlier stages of the Bill, we recognise that there will be impacts on employers as a result of the changes, with employers facing difficult decisions. It will implement a difficult but necessary decision that, along with others, is critical to raising the revenue needed to fix the public finances, get public services back on their feet and restore economic stability.
The Bill before us has three measures: first, an increase to the main rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%; secondly, a decrease in the secondary threshold for employers from £9,100 to £5,000 per year from 6 April 2025; and thirdly, changes to the employment allowance to support small businesses. The measure will protect small businesses and charities by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 pounds a year from April 2025. In addition, the £100,000 eligibility threshold will be removed.
Through the measures in the Bill and others in the Budget, the Government are taking the difficult but necessary decisions to fix the foundations of our economy. If hon. Members in other parties choose to vote against the Bill, the British people will see that they are voting to ignore the fiscal mess that we inherited. They are voting to cut investment in the NHS and to increase borrowing for day-to-day spending.
Finally, I reiterate my thanks to hon. Members who have participated in the debate, and I extend my thanks to all the officials for their support. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
This is not a Bill, but a Shakespearean tragedy. It is the “Hamlet” of our age. While the Labour party was tipping the poison into the ears of the electorate, it was assuring them in its manifesto that it would do nothing with national insurance. Look what it has done. This will hit inflation—all forecasts show it higher every year than it would have been under us back in the spring. Mortgages will be higher, living standards will be lower, wages will be driven further down and there will be a £770 reduction in the standard of living by October 2029, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. We will see 50,000 jobs destroyed, particularly among our younger people. We will see growth impacted—lower across the forecast period than it would have been under ourselves back in the spring.
This is a far cry from our record when we left office, with employment at near record highs, unemployment at near record lows, the fastest growing economy in the G7 and real wages growing in every month for 13 consecutive months. We brought inflation down from over 11% in October 2022 to exactly the target of 2% on election day. The Bill is a calamity for businesses up and down our country. We are the party that understands that we only get good public services with a strong economy and strong businesses. The Labour party is consigning people up and down this country, plunging them into the tepid bath of managed decline over which it has presided.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Wednesday 18th December 2024
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Monday 6th January 2025
(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
21:00 - Division on Baroness Kramer’s amendment. - Ayes: 46 / Noes: 61 - Baroness Kramer’s amendment disagreed.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I wish all noble Lords a happy new year. It is a pleasure to open this debate. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has tabled a regret amendment expressing concern about the measures in the Bill. While I of course understand and respect the points raised in it, this Government had to take some very difficult decisions—not decisions we wanted to take, but necessary decisions to clear up the mess we inherited.
In the time I have available today, I will seek to explain why not acting was simply not an option, and why this Bill is necessary to repair the public finances, while protecting working people and rebuilding our public services.
I will begin by setting out the economic context in which the Budget decisions contained in this Bill were taken. As noble Lords will know, on her arrival at the Treasury last July, the Chancellor was informed of a £22 billion black hole in the public finances—a series of commitments made by the previous Government which they did not fund and did not disclose. Ahead of the Budget, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility had conducted a review into the circumstances surrounding a meeting it held with the Treasury on 8 February last year, at which the previous Government were obliged to disclose all unfunded pressure against the reserve.
The OBR’s review established that at that point the previous Government concealed £9.5 billion. However, as we now know, during the remaining five months they had left in office, the previous Government continued to amass unfunded commitments, which they did not disclose. By the time of the spring Budget, Treasury records show these had reached £16.3 billion. By July, they had reached £22 billion.
The Treasury has provided to the OBR a line-by-line breakdown of these unfunded commitments: 260 separate pressures which the previous Government did not fund and did not disclose. Neither did they make any provision for costs they knew would materialise, including £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal, and £1.8 billion to compensate victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal.
The country inherited not just broken public finances but broken public services: NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in Portakabins as school roofs crumbled and rivers filled with polluted waste. Yet, since 2021, there had been no spending review and no detailed plans for departmental spending set out beyond this year.
Faced with this reality of broken public finances and broken public services, any responsible Chancellor would have had to act. Some noble Lords, during today’s debate, may argue otherwise: that we should have ignored the black hole in the public finances. But this is the path of irresponsibility, the path chosen by the Liz Truss mini-Budget, when mortgage costs increased by £300 a month, and for which working people are still paying the price.
That is not the path chosen by this Government. Our number one commitment is economic and fiscal stability. That is why, as a result of the Budget—and only because of the measures contained in this Bill, combined with other difficult decisions we have taken—instead of £22 billion of unfunded spending plans, within three years not a single penny of day-to-day government spending will be funded by borrowing.
Yes, it was a significant Budget, on a scale commensurate with the challenging inheritance we faced. And yes, it did mean taking difficult decisions. As a result, however—and only made possible by the measures contained in this Bill—we have now wiped the slate clean, creating a platform of stability in the public finances.
The Budget made another very important choice: to keep the manifesto commitments we made to working people to not increase their income tax, their national insurance or VAT. Compare that with the choices made by the previous Government, who chose to freeze income tax thresholds, costing working people nearly £30 billion. This Government could have chosen to extend that freeze, but that was not the choice we made. Instead, from 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. However, keeping those promises to working people, while repairing the public finances and rebuilding our public services, did mean we had to take some very difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax, including those in the Bill before your Lordships’ House today.
The Bill contains three key measures: first, an increase to the rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%; secondly, a decrease of the secondary threshold for employers—the threshold above which employers begin to pay employer national insurance contributions on their employees’ salaries—from £9,100 to £5,000; and, thirdly, measures to protect small businesses by more than doubling the current employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. The Bill will also expand the eligibility of the employment allowance by removing the £100,000 threshold so that more employers now benefit.
I of course understand that some of these measures mean asking businesses to contribute more, and I fully acknowledge that some impacts will be felt beyond businesses too. These are difficult decisions, and I understand and respect the legitimate concerns that have been raised, including by business. However, taken together, the measures in the Bill mean that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities will either see no change or see their liabilities decrease. Some 865,000 employers will now not pay any national insurance at all, and over 1 million employers will pay the same or less than they did before. All eligible employers will now be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance contributions. The Government are also setting aside support for the public sector of £5.1 billion by 2029-30, ensuring that there is sufficient funding for our vital public services, including the NHS.
I also recognise that concerns have been raised about the wider economic consequences of the measures contained in the Bill—concerns I am sure we will hear in today’s debate. Let me be clear: not to act was not an option. The choices we have made were the only route to putting the public finances back on a stable path, while protecting working people and rebuilding the public services. The economic data we have seen in recent months is, of course, disappointing; in particular, the recent growth figures show the sheer scale of the challenge we face. However, there would have been far greater costs to continuing with the irresponsibility and instability that has been a near-constant feature of the past 14 years: from the chaos of Brexit and the disastrous deal that followed, through to the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and devastated family finances.
Let us remember that the OECD now expects the UK to be the fastest growing European G7 economy, and at the Budget, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility was clear that, with particular reference to our capital investments, the Budget will increase the size of the economy in the long term. On living standards, the OBR forecast shows that real household disposable income will increase in real terms in each year of this Parliament; the level of real wages will rise by 3% over the next five years; and the number of people in employment will rise by 1.2 million over the course of this Parliament. Our planning reforms, pension reforms, skills reforms and industrial strategy will all contribute to higher growth, but none are yet included in the OBR’s forecast.
The measures contained in the Bill also contribute to significant new investment in the NHS. That vital investment—amounting to £25.7 billion extra for the NHS over this year and next—is only possible because of this Bill. It includes £1.5 billion for new surgical hubs; more than £1.25 billion to deliver over 1 million additional diagnostic tests; over £2 billion for technology and digital improvements to increase NHS productivity and save staff time; and £880 million more in local government spending to support social care. All of that will support the NHS to deliver an extra 40,000 elective appointments a week, helping us to bring waiting lists down more quickly.
The choices we have made are the right choices. They are not the easy ones, but the responsible ones: to rebuild the public finances, to protect working people and to invest in Britain’s future. None of those things would be possible without the Bill. It is of course possible to make different choices: to ignore the problems in the public finances, to continue to neglect our public services or to fail to protect working people. Noble Lords may wish to argue for that during today’s debate, but this Government were elected with a mandate to fix the foundations of our economy. The Bill delivers on that mandate and provides a foundation of stability on which we will now build long-term, sustainable growth. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Kramer
At end insert “but that, while recognising the need to rebuild public services and finances, this House regrets that the Bill risks worsening pressures in the NHS and social care by placing costs on GPs and dentists, social care providers and hospices; increases burdens on small businesses, early years providers, universities and charities; and penalises part-time work, and puts jobs and economic growth at risk”.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, before I begin, I say to the House that on these Benches, we will make sure that the words of appreciation and expressions of friendship for Baroness Randerson will be passed back to her family. I am sure that they will mean a great deal to them. I suspect that on many Benches, as on our Benches, noble Lords are somewhat in shock. We have lost not just a colleague and highly respected politician but a very real friend. We give our thanks to this House for its shared respect and friendship.
We on these Benches recognise the difficult state of the public finances and the desperate need for investment in public services and infrastructure to drive growth and tackle climate change. We can see that the responsibility for the current condition rests with the Conservatives. However, in our general election manifesto we did not duck the issue of new funding. We took the approach that we must find the broadest shoulders to raise additional tax revenue—from the gambling industry to share buybacks, from big banks to big tech. We have tabled this amendment to the Motion today to make it very clear that we believe that the Government have taken the wrong approach in hiking employers’ national insurance contributions as their way to fill the funding gap, and we fear that the present plans will undermine national recovery. We ask the Government to think again.
Our amendment addresses a wide range of sectors that will be particularly badly injured by the NICs increases. Look at whom the changes impact: small businesses—bigger than micro, which get some protection, but small businesses still. These businesses, especially in hospitality, underpin the resilience of our communities. They need to be investing in growth and productivity, not struggling for survival. The changes impact many businesses that offer part-time work, which in turn is often the route out of disadvantage since much part-time work will now be subject to NICs for the first time. Almost every childcare provider will have to hike fees or cut places, forcing some parents to give up work. Universities, many already facing dire funding pressures, are struggling to cope and will face a much more difficult situation. The hikes impact charities of all kinds and housing associations, which should be focused on building new affordable and social homes.
In the course of today, colleagues will address many of these issues, as well as the impact on devolved authorities, town and parish councils and veterans. We will follow with amendments to the Bill in its next stages. However, our deepest concern, and where we will focus our efforts, is the impact on community care and social care, with significant consequences for the NHS. The Conservatives drove this sector into the ground. The Government are setting up the Casey commission, to report in 2026 and 2028, but this sector is in crisis now. We cannot understand how the Government cannot see the harm that NICs increases will do to this vital sector.
Our research has revealed that the NICs hike will cost GP surgeries some £125.5 million a year, which is equivalent to funding 2 million appointments. Hospices, which face a £30 million bill, have warned that they may have to withdraw beds. Research from the Nuffield Trust shows that the cost to adult social care alone will exceed £900 million next year. I point out to the Minister that this is more than the extra funds that the Government allocated to the sector in the last Budget. It in effect wipes it out, and then some. We risk losing many small care providers and seeing large ones cut capacity. Pharmacists and dentists will not receive compensation in full. Surely the Government must recognise that the knock-on effects will undermine their ambitions to revive the NHS; this in turn will undermine jobs and economic recovery. My colleagues will expand much further.
The last Government failed the economy, failed our public services—including the NHS and social care—and, I fully accept, pursued a scorched-earth policy with the public finances. However, this Bill is not the way forward. We ask that this House press the Government to step back and reconsider. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I must start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for his clear explanation of this short and simple Bill, the context as he sees it, and the “happy new year” that we all hope to see, despite everything we will probably hear today.
I endorse the tribute from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to Baroness Randerson: what a shock. I will come to the noble Baroness’s Motion later.
Despite the welcome increase in the employment allowance—effectively advocated by my friends at the Federation of Small Businesses—it is difficult to hide the fact that this Bill introduces a jobs tax right across the UK; it represents a £23.7 billion raid on employers. During the general election six months ago, the Labour Party claimed that, if it formed the next Government, the first priority would be to increase the rate of economic growth, and the Chancellor said that they would be the “most pro-business Government ever”—that was the promise. I attended the Times summit, and businesses were very reassured by everything the Chancellor said.
On taking office, the Government, notably the Prime Minister and Chancellor, relentlessly and consistently stressed the allegedly dire state of the national economy, constantly referring to their mythical black hole of £22 billion. I believe it would be true to state that no positive words on UK economic prospects ever passed their lips. But, as Keynes and many other eminent economists stressed long ago, economic success is in part a matter of morale. That discovery was, apparently, forgotten by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.
The Budget is the principal mechanism by which the new Government were able to give effect to their aspirations and objectives. Unfortunately, it was widely and correctly described as anti-business. It raised taxes substantially by placing large new burdens on business, most notably by way of increases in national insurance. The consequences of this pessimism at the top of government, and the extra burdens on business, are clear for all to see: a faltering economy, thought by some commentators even to be verging on depression, and an unpopular Government. That is quite an achievement when the Government are only six months old. Noble Lords will recall that in the first half of the year, the economy was growing strongly and inflation had reduced sharply from the highs created by Covid, Ukraine and the energy crisis. I suggest that gives a much more accurate summary of last year’s economics.
Sadly, the financial world is of a similar view. On 3 January, the critical measure of confidence, the 10-year gilts yield, was at 4.59%, which was higher than its peak after the Kwarteng Budget. In Germany, the bond yield rate at the end of December was 2.38%, and even in Italy it was only 3.52%. This morning, we had a stark warning from the British Chambers of Commerce that more than half of firms were planning to raise their prices in response to tax hikes announced by the Chancellor in October. Business confidence is at a two-year low.
The Government introduced several business-related measures in their Budget, and unfortunately, they were overwhelmingly negative. The increase in employer national insurance contributions, which I will come on to dissect, was accompanied by the partial removal of non-domestic business rate waivers dating back to Covid; a further increase in minimum wages; and an affirmation of plans to introduce costly new rigidities into the labour market. This was a quadruple hit on our hard-working businesses, and that is before accounting for the IHT changes that have so unsettled family businesses and our farming community.
The minimum wage is, of course, something we do not oppose, but it introduces further costs to businesses, especially small businesses, at a time when they are drowning in extra burdens. These businesses all play a crucial role in helping the British economy to grow, which is what we all want.
A number of sectors have released reports detailing the profound consequences these measures will have on their businesses, and this has highlighted the extent to which the Government fail to understand not only the private sector but how to promote and encourage a growing economy. The December growth figures from the ONS were very disappointing: down 0.1%, as were the OECD and IMF comparisons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, actually set out the Opposition’s position on the various sectors affected. However, her amendment is too kind to the Government; the NICs changes are a jobs tax on all business and not-for-profit sectors, not just a few. Passing it will have no effect on the Bill and do nothing for the groups mentioned. Instead, we need the Liberal Democrats to join us, on Wednesday, in opposing the Bill’s committal to Grand Committee. The Floor of the House is the revising Chamber that can be relied on to delve into vital detail and the perverse effects of such legislation. There is huge concern across the country and we should be debating this Bill, which can be amended—unlike money Bills—in Committee in this Chamber.
I turn to some individual sectors. The Government have angered businesses across retail. Over 70 businesses sent a letter to the Chancellor outlining their concerns. Big employers, including Tesco, Sainsbury and Next, said that:
“For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timescale. The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level”.
We find it particularly concerning that the Government maintain a rhetoric that they are pro-growth and pro-business, without listening to the very businesses that can help them. If they did, they would realise that their plans have not been thought through and that they will have far-reaching consequences in closures and the prevention of growth.
The retail sector estimated that the measures introduced in the Budget will cost the sector up to £7 billion a year, and that these costs will be offset through a reduction in headcount, a freezing of wages and increased prices for the consumer. From my own retail experience and observations in recent weeks, I believe that we risk more insolvencies and empty shops on the high street. This is all too likely to have a multiplier effect on confidence and investment. Reports state that the Centre for Retail Research forecasts over 17,000 store closures in 2025, confirming my fears.
UK hospitality will also pay a high price in adapting to the new taxes. The sector indicated that it will pay at least £1 billion as a result of the increase in national insurance alone and that this will hit its far from buoyant profits. Take an example: a survey from the British Institute of Innkeeping indicates that 40% of independently operating pubs will have to reduce their opening hours as a result of this increase in national insurance contributions alongside the other harmful measures towards businesses included in the Budget. As a pub-goer, I know that turning up to a closed pub puts one off going to the pub again and that that has a multiplier effect.
The increase in NICs is unusual in causing pain to many not-for-profit sectors. They often get by, despite straitened circumstances, because of their workers’ passion and hard work. A good example is our wonderful hospices, as we heard during the PNQ. The charity, Together for Short Lives—a children’s hospice—estimated that this specific increase will put up the cost of providing such hospice care by £5 million across the sector. This will have a seriously detrimental impact on already underfunded hospices and will reduce the availability of lifeline care for children across the country. The Marie Curie charity concluded that the NICs changes will force it to reduce headcount and limit services, with more terminally ill patients staying in hospital, which is bad for them and the NHS, at a time when the debate on assisted dying has highlighted the inadequacy and unevenness of hospice provision. I hope that the Government are listening.
Regrettably, this is part of the wider picture of underfunding in social care, which has already been highlighted. The Nuffield Trust says that independent care providers will face £940 million in additional costs. That dwarfs the £600 million of support introduced in the Budget.
The Government are rightly trying to make more use of pharmacies to tackle waiting times, and yet Community Pharmacy England says that they will be hit by an extra £50 million a year. GPs are caught, as we heard: the Institute of General Practice Management estimates extra costs of about £20,000 a year for the average practice. Ironically, the BMA says that, as public authorities, they are unable to access support via the increased employment allowance. They look with envy and surprise at arrangements already made to protect the NHS and Civil Service from the NICs hikes.
Finally, there is the extraordinary impact on nurseries, where the last Government did so much to extend childcare and help more mothers into work, which boosted growth. The National Day Nurseries Association estimates that the combinations of NICs and salary increases will mean an extra £47,000 on average per nursery, and that those providing more than 50% government-funded childcare will also be deprived of the employment allowance.
I look forward to hearing from others in this debate about the effect of these changes and their unfairness and perverse impacts on so many sectors.
To conclude, we cannot support the key provisions of the Bill. It is a betrayal—yes, a betrayal—of the promise in the Labour manifesto that all reasonable people interpreted as a commitment not to increase national insurance. The stuff said about “working people’’ does not cut the mustard. Moreover, we know from the OBR that the national insurance changes alone will reduce labour supply by 0.2% and add 0.2% to inflation by 2029-30. Sadly, we are already seeing this in business recruitment plans.
We look forward to carrying out our scrutiny functions effectively as this important Bill progresses. It would be very helpful if the Government could update us with their latest view of the impact of the proposed changes on jobs, wages and prices. We are very much in favour of a proper evaluation of policies in the light of experience, and, accordingly, we will be tabling a proposed new clause requiring the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the NICs increases on the employment rate a year after the passing of the Bill. I know from my time as a Minister that such amendments are routinely resisted by the system but that they can be helpful down the road to a responsible Minister keen to do the right thing.
In short, our position is that, even if the Government thought it was right to raise many billions in taxation, this is the wrong way of doing it. The country will regret it.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I am in no doubt that taxes have to rise. The spending decisions made by the last Government—or rather the lack of them—the cost of the pandemic, higher interest rates and increasing demographic pressures all point in the same direction. Therefore, with a heavy heart, I broadly support the Bill.
In a sensible world, the Government would not have made the manifesto commitments on personal taxes that they did. For my part, I would have preferred to see an increase in income tax, as Denis Healey implemented in his first Budget, or even an increase in VAT, as Sir Geoffrey Howe and George Osborne implemented in their first Budgets. But we are where we are, and I recognise that tearing up a manifesto commitment in a first Budget rarely ends well for a Chancellor. It is much better to raise a large tax a little than lots of small taxes a lot. Those who oppose the Bill really need to explain how they would fill the void which its defeat would leave.
My main worry about the recent Budget is that it did not go far enough in stabilising the public finances. Fiscal headroom is remarkably small, long-term interest rates remain stubbornly high, and spending pressures—in particular those relating to the so-called triple lock on pensions and to the National Health Service, social care and defence—are as likely to increase as to decline. Although I remain an optimist about Britain’s long-term growth prospects, given the global move to protectionism there is every chance that the economy will underperform over the next 18 months.
I understand the concerns about the impact of this tax increase. We should be in no doubt that national insurance is indeed a tax on jobs; generally, the more you tax employment, the less you will get of it. The change will undoubtedly add cost pressures, both for the public and the voluntary sectors, which the Government will need to address. But in assessing the impact of this measure, we need to recognise that the economy is close to full employment; indeed, that is one of the reasons why it has been so easy for inflation to take root in recent years.
It is important to look at national insurance in the round. The incidence of employers’ national insurance is almost identical to that of employee national insurance. The last Government cut the rate of employee national insurance from 12% to 8% earlier this year. They should not have done so, since that only added to the deficit, but they did, and I am happy to make a virtue of its economic impact in the labour market broadly off-setting the negative impact of the measure in the Bill. The cuts in employee national insurance make it cheaper to employ people; the rise in employers’ national insurance makes it more expensive. The net effect is broadly neutral, and many have argued that it would have been a lot easier to cancel the employee cut and leave employers’ national insurance unchanged, but here we come back to the manifesto commitment.
I will confine my remaining comments to how national insurance contributions might develop from here, given that whoever is in power in the decades ahead will be under pressure to raise more in tax. First, I worry that national insurance rates are too high and income tax rates too low. During my adult life, the combined rate of national insurance has risen from 14.5% to 23%, while the basic rate of income tax has fallen from 34% to 20%. The only reason I can see for this change is a belief that taxpayers are less averse to paying national insurance than income tax. However, the evidence for that is increasingly thin. More significantly, to use the language of the last century, the trend has benefited rentiers and capitalists at the expense of the workers.
Secondly, if Governments remain determined to keep income tax and national insurance separate, I would encourage the Treasury to consider the base for national insurance contributions. As I said, it is anomalous that national insurance is not chargeable on interest income, dividends or rents. It is also anomalous that employees cease to pay national insurance at pension age. I declare a personal interest, since I will reach pension age in six months’ time.
Thirdly, there is the issue of the self-employed. I completely understand why the Government have chosen not to increase self-employed national insurance in the Bill. The last Chancellor who sought to do so was, after all, the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, and that was what is known in the trade as a courageous decision—I was not entirely surprised when he was forced to back off very quickly. There may have been some logic for the self-employed paying lower national insurance when we still had income-related benefits to which they were not entitled, but those days are very long gone. As the OBR and others have pointed out, the Bill will encourage employers to find ways of recasting their employees as self-employed. I therefore ask the Financial Secretary what plans the Government have to make this more difficult.
Finally, I encourage the Government to consider how the costs of an ageing population will be financed. I have long argued the case for a health and social care levy paid by employees, employers and the self-employed. The last Government were sensible enough to introduce one—indeed, its abolition is one of the only surviving measures of the notorious Truss-Kwarteng mini-Budget—and sooner or later, and probably not in this Parliament, a Government will have to return to such a levy. As and when that happens, I would encourage the Treasury to consider as wide a base as possible, the better to keep the rate down. In the meanwhile, painful though it is, I see no alternative but to support the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I wish to make three quick points on this, the largest and probably most consequential, measure announced by the Chancellor in the Budget. My first point is very tentative, as it relates to the promises on taxation made by major parties prior to general elections. We are an unelected House, and I am deeply conscious of the peculiar pressures that political parties navigate to put across a message and compete with their opponents, but I think, wishfully perhaps, that greater restraint by parties on what they promise in the area of taxation would be appropriate since the House of Commons should have maximum freedom to pass a Finance Bill in our overall interests. I cannot be alone in thinking that placing such a burden on employer national insurance because of prior commitments ruling out other possible options is less than optimal and is already seemingly restraining economic growth.
My second point is that the Church of England agreed in 1976 to forgo the pre-existing arrangements whereby ministers of religion were treated as self-employed and embrace employer national insurance. The increases mandated by this Bill affect us as they affect others. The impact nationally for a full year, including clergy, is around £10 million, excluding large numbers of staff directly employed by parishes. For my diocese, the amount is around £390,000. Our principal income source for paying all stipend-related costs comes from voluntary parish giving, which is restricted, and we have still not heard from the Treasury whether it will extend the listed places of worship grant scheme which gives VAT refunds for listed church repairs.
Our parishes and dioceses sustain extensive social outreach as well as support for other charities. Do His Majesty’s Government appreciate the risk of staff and clergy reductions and the closure of buildings as a consequence of these measures in the worst-case scenario? This is mirrored, as I am sure the Minister has been advised and as we have already heard from other Members, by the impact on hospice care—much of which originated in Christian foundations—where the additional government help will not address the shortfall, despite the urgent need highlighted in the debate in another place on the assisted dying Bill.
However, my principal point has been raised in the briefing sent to a number of your Lordships. It is the impact of the proposed increases on the transport sector that is devoted specifically to serving children with special educational needs. As I understand it, local councils will be covered by proposed grants and compensation for the increases in this Bill where they directly employ staff in school transport. However, this does not extend to private industry, which employs some 100,000 people in this sector as drivers and passenger assistants. Many are part-time, whose employment will be caught by the provisions of this Bill for the first time. All are trained in serving special needs children and many are over 50 years of age. If contracts become unviable as a result of these measures and companies return them to local authorities, it will introduce a degree of turmoil into the lives of children, many of whom are on the autistic spectrum and for whom consistency is vital. Failure to maintain their education because of gaps in SEND transport will have serious consequences. I hope that the Minister will note this. It will further increase unemployment among the over-50s, whom we want to keep from the ranks of the economically inactive. Therefore, will the Minister consider two measures to ameliorate this situation? First, will he consider an emergency grant to local authorities for the fiscal year 2025-26 to address immediate and unplanned shortfalls arising from the increased costs to the SEND transport sector? Secondly, will he submit long-term funding provision for SEND transport services to phase 2 of the comprehensive spending review in order to extend support through to at least March 2028?
I do not intend to vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but I am grateful for the opportunity afforded at this Second Reading to express my concerns to the House about the impact of the Bill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. I look forward to him tabling amendments at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill to meet the requirements that, as he has quite rightly pointed out, are essential for transport for children with special needs.
This is an unusual proceeding, is it not—that we are allowed in this House to consider a Budget measure? The reason we are able to do it is that national insurance is not a tax. I repeat: it is not a tax. It is a specific, compulsory social insurance scheme. Therefore, I was surprised to hear the Minister arguing that it was necessary to put it up to close his £22 billion black hole, which, of course, does not exist. If it did exist, it would surely be entirely inappropriate to use national insurance to meet requirements that were not specific for the purpose of national insurance.
As it is not a tax—even if this Government treat it as if it were—we are able to discuss the Bill in this House. We are able to reject it, and to amend it. The Government’s response is to put it in a cupboard, around the corner, in the Moses Room, where there will be no opportunity to amend it, in the hope that no one will notice the severe damage that is being done to our country in so many sectors, as we have heard. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, this is an opportunity to ask the Government to think again. I look forward to seeing the Liberal Democrats coming through the Lobbies with us in support of amendments to change the nature of this Bill; I think not. I think not because it is all posturing on their part; it is just empty rhetoric.
Even if we were to accept, as the OBR did not, that there was a £22 billion black hole, after all the arrangements are made to compensate very small businesses and others for the impact of this crazy scheme, the net revenue that the Government will achieve is about half of the £25 billion. Some people say it will be even less; some say it could be as little as £10 billion. Is that not a coincidence? That £10 billion is almost exactly the same figure as the cost of the inflationary pay increases given by this Government on taking office to the most militant unions in the country, including the BMA. They pretend that this is about dealing with some black hole left by the previous Government when, in fact, as the old adage—the old cliché—says, “When in a hole, stop digging”. If the Minister thought he was in a hole, why on earth did he keep digging by allowing a £10 billion inflationary increase in pay, without any requirement to improve productivity with a view to financing it?
The HMRC says—I assume that the Minister will not challenge HMRC’s figures—that 940,000 businesses will lose an average of £800 per employee, at a time when the economy is stagnant. Six months of this Government have brought growth to a complete, shuddering halt, and brought back the ghost of stagflation to our country, which we remember in the 1970s as the inheritance that we got from irresponsible government policies.
The list of organisations—private sector, public sector and charitable—in this country is endless. We have just heard from the right reverend Prelate about the problems for the Church in meeting the stipends—it might be worth reducing the contribution in reparation for alleged crimes against slavery to meet that requirement. We have heard from leading retailers that there will be major store closures. We have heard from pubs and restaurants already severely damaged by the impact of Covid, along with the rest of the country, about how they will be affected.
Faced with that—faced with the problems in the hospitality industries and others—this Government decide to reduce the schedule to people who are paid £5,000 a year in order to create a requirement to pay national insurance. They say, “We are going to compensate that because you can apply for a rebate”. That means more bureaucracy and more impediments to businesses that are struggling. In my time I have done quite a bit to support Marie Curie Cancer Care, so I know intimately how important its work is. This measure will cost that organisation £3 million. That is a lot of coffee mornings up and down the country, with volunteers raising money for charities such as Marie Curie.
There are many other examples, such as homeless charities, childcare, which has been mentioned—single parents are already struggling, yet we are told this is not going to affect working people—and universities. Then there is the nasty, vicious imposition of VAT on private schools, which will mean that many children with special needs are no longer able to get the support they need because the state sector is unable to provide it. I know the Government will say, “People who are designated will get support”, but it takes years to get an assessment and there are many kids—the right reverend Prelate mentioned children with autism—for whom a move from school is disturbing.
Then there are parish councils and GPs. I had a representation from the BMA telling me that this was iniquitous and would have an impact on GPs—absolutely so. That is the same BMA that was campaigning and striking for more money for doctors, and now it is arguing that there should be more money for GPs because the Government are saying they need the money in order to pay that obligation.
I understand that I have a different figure for the cost of adult social care. It is true that the last Government messed up on social care, and that this House was unanimous across all Benches on the need to address social care to protect the NHS. Where are the people on the Benches opposite now speaking up for social care, where I believe the costs are nothing short of £2.8 billion?
Perhaps I have been a little tough on the Chancellor, but she is right about one thing: we desperately need growth in this country. The reason we are not getting it is that the state has become too large and overmighty; it has become a cuckoo in our country’s economy. The Government said this Budget was necessary in order to stabilise the economy, but what have they done? They have not only added this tax but increased borrowing at a time when the costs of borrowing are growing as a result of the actions they have taken.
We keep hearing that Liz Truss crashed the economy because she made tax cut proposals that were not equally balanced by cuts in public expenditure and, as a result, the market for 10-year gilts went up. I have to tell the Minister that, as has been pointed out, the market for gilts is now at a higher level than it was then. So am I entitled to say he has crashed the economy because of the imposition of this tax?
Of course we all know that taxes are too high and that the previous Government allowed that to happen, but that was because we had Covid and Ukraine. The only reason why this Government are continuing to increase borrowing and so on is that they want to have a bigger state.
If we are to get Britain working again, we need to get people back to work. I actually agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, about merging income tax and national insurance because, as I hope I have demonstrated, it is a fantasy to treat it as being anything other than a tax. Indeed, the tax commission that I chaired for George Osborne in 2006 recommended that, but they were not too keen on the idea because it would make it absolutely transparent how much of people’s hard-earned money the state was taking in taxation. The noble Lord is right about that.
I also find it extraordinary that as someone—your Lordships may be surprised to hear—who is over pensionable age, I do not have to pay national insurance on my income. The Minister asked us to say what else they could have done. Well, they could have done that instead of imposing a tax on employment. It is estimated—of course, we do not have the proper figures—that more than 9 million people in this country who are of working age and capable, in theory at least, of being at work are not working. To resolve that situation by making it more expensive for people to take on others as employees seems to me an extraordinary act of madness.
The CBI, an organisation that I do not often cite, believes, following a survey of its members, that 50% of them think that the imposition of these national insurance changes will result in its members cutting the numbers of jobs, and that two-thirds of its members believe that it will curtail recruitment. Bloomberg estimates that 130,000 jobs will be lost. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, talked about full employment; how can we do so when we have so many people not working at all? This is a nonsense. He also talked about the importance of addressing the numbers of elderly people who now have to be supported by a shrinking working population. I have to say to him—nothing personal, you understand—that having index-linked final salary pension schemes in the public sector and increasing the burden on people in the private sector, who do not enjoy such gold-plated pensions, is simply unsustainable.
If those on the Front Bench opposite are worried about black holes, they should consider the black hole represented by that. It is a contingent liability of £1.3 trillion, which makes the £22 billion black hole look like an asteroid compared with it, or with the black hole that student loans are creating. It is estimated that the nominal debt on student loans will be more than £1 trillion in 25 years. These are the black holes that should be addressed.
The truth is that our country is running on empty. We desperately need to reinvigorate the private sector to create the wealth to meet those obligations, and we are not going to do that by hobbling and damaging the private sector with impositions of this kind. If the Government want growth, we need less bureaucracy—not a quango being created every week. We want to be encouraging investment from overseas, not penalising it and forcing people to leave by introducing non-dom taxes. I personally know a large number of people who have already left the country. There must be a huge number because I do not know that many billionaires, unfortunately.
If you tax something, it is usually because you want less of it. Taxing employment makes no sense at all. If you want to tax something and to look at other sources of revenue, deal with the unfair competition from Amazon and other online retailers with our high street retailers. Deal with gambling, as the noble Baroness said, or with welfare dependency, which is partly at the root of the problems in this country.
The Government’s great boast, they say, is “Not a penny more on payslips” as a result of this Budget. Sadly, for many there will be no more payslips and no more pay increases. I hope that the Government think again and that there will be an opportunity in Committee for us to send a message to the House of Commons to rethink this incredibly damaging proposal, which goes to the heart of the Chancellor’s pledge to get growth in our country.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, consideration of the Bill poses two serious economic questions. Regrettably, as one might have anticipated, neither was addressed by the noble Baroness speaking from the Front Bench for the Opposition. The first serious question is: should taxes be raised at all? She told us nothing either way. Secondly, if overall taxes are to be raised, should the increase take the form of the changes to employers’ national insurance outlined in the Bill, or should there be increases in other taxes? She said there should be others but told us not what they should be. How might the impact of differing tax strategies be compared? We heard nothing about these two fundamental questions that the House should address with respect to the Bill.
The issue of whether taxation should have been raised in the Budget by £40 billion, of which the national insurance increases contribute a little over half, is a question of overall fiscal balance and of the composition of the expenditure that the taxes are designed to finance. Those who argue that taxes should not have been raised must tell us whether, instead, borrowing should be increased on this scale or whether the expenditure outlined in the Budget should be cut. We can call the increased borrowing option the Liz Truss option and we can call the option of cutting the budget the austerity option. I am sure noble Lords will agree that we have heard enough, and had enough, of both those policies from the previous Government.
As everyone in this House must be aware, the increased expenditure outlined in the Budget is needed to begin the necessary repair of national infrastructure, debilitated after 14 years of persistent Tory neglect. I am aware that the party opposite has some difficulty with the arithmetic required to identify the £22 billion of unfunded commitments that are the result of its recent fiscal incontinence. It displays a strange form of intellectual or psychological denial—perhaps they should take counselling from the OBR.
The black chasm of economic failure is undeniable and obvious to all. The failure is inherent in the ever-longer NHS waiting lists and a GP service that is virtually non-existent in many parts of the country. The neglect of hospital buildings means that many are now so dilapidated as to constitute a danger to the occupants. The Budget allocates £25 billion over the next two years to start repairing those years of neglect, with £13.6 billion to invest in new buildings, equipment and technology—the largest capital investment in the NHS for over 15 years. Noble Lords of the party opposite should tell us whether they support that investment or not.
To take another example of the result of Tory neglect, consider the report of the Defence Committee in another place. What it describes as the “hollowing out” of Britain’s Armed Forces since 2010 has undermined UK war-fighting resilience. The British Army’s Regular Forces—currently about 75,000 troops—would, we are told, struggle to field even one war-ready division. That is the result of Conservative neglect of our military. The Budget increased defence spending in real terms by £2.9 billion for next year. Of course that is not enough, but it is a start, to begin repairing the damage.
I could go on. There are school buildings that are dangerous, prisoners released early because of insufficient investment in the prisons estate, court buildings in serious disrepair, our roads defined by the number of potholes, and local council budgets cut through and beyond the bone. Underinvestment and neglect of the public sector have been bywords of economic policy for the last 14 years, with capital budgets raided to fund current needs—and there, sitting opposite, is the guilty party. As all serious commentators appreciate, there is no quick fix for these problems, but the Labour Government have made a positive start in the Budget by increasing capital budgets for 2025-26 and onwards. Which of these investments would noble Lords opposite oppose?
We have heard all the standard excuses—the pandemic, Ukraine—but that will not wash when we recognise that, over the 14 Tory years, the UK suffered not only persistent public sector neglect but the lowest rate of private sector business investment in the UK. That is no accident. The cheerleaders of austerity depressed business confidence and their persistent neglect of the public sector—and public sector investment—confirmed those depressed expectations. Living standards stagnated and, without investment, growth in productivity—the fundamental key to improving living standards—was negligible. The only Conservative growth strategy was uncontrolled immigration.
So the first question is: was the budgeted increase in taxation necessary to start the long task of repair? The answer is undoubtedly “Yes, it was”. But now to the second question: was employers’ national insurance the right tax to choose? There is the obvious issue of Labour’s manifesto commitment not to increase the taxation of workers’ income. But, given both the necessity of raising taxation and the Government’s overriding objective of economic growth, let us leave the manifesto commitments aside and focus on the merits of choosing employers’ national insurance.
The key variables to secure increased growth are: efficient use of national resources, a boost to public and private investment and sustained growth of productivity. No one likes tax increases, even essential ones, but the key to investment is the confident expansion of growth of demand in a stable financial environment. The overall fiscal balance in this Budget will increase overall demand with a public sector injection of £24 billion in the next financial year and will ensure financial stability. But what of the impact of employers’ national insurance on the efficient use of resources, business costs and productivity? Here, the detailed economic analysis of the OBR provides us with a firm starting point for debate.
As all noble Lords are aware, the Conservative Government pursued a cheap labour policy, neglecting investment in skills—look what has happened to further education colleges—and relying on mass immigration to meet labour needs. This cheap labour policy de-incentivised labour-saving investment, hitting productivity growth hard. If we examine the impact of the employers’ national insurance rise, we see that the effect is quite the opposite. The OBR, in estimating the impact, assesses that firms will pass on most, but not all, of their higher tax costs to employees. Once the labour market settles down, the OBR estimates that 76% of the total cost is passed on through lower wages—that is called lower costs to business, by the way—leaving 24% of the cost to be borne by employers. Overall, the OBR expects firms to reduce the demand for labour, as we have heard.
These results will have two major advantages. First, as noble Lords are aware, there is a significant labour shortage in the UK at the moment, due in no small part to the large post-Covid withdrawals from the labour force. More efficient use of labour is highly desirable, while the overall fiscal balance will sustain aggregate employment levels. Secondly, an increased cost of labour will encourage firms to look for ways to reduce overall labour costs, economising on a scarce resource and increasing productivity. Combined with new employment rights and a higher minimum wage, the increase in employers’ national insurance will encourage investment in training and equipment, boosting productivity, especially in labour-intensive services where higher productivity is most needed.
Let us compare these outcomes with an alternative, such as increasing employees’ national insurance, or increasing income tax. That would have a direct impact on demand, reducing profitability, and there would be a reduction—probably quite a small one—in the supply of labour. There would be no incentive to increase productivity.
When noble Lords opposite actually come clean and tell us what their alternative proposals might be, they should compare them with the measures in this Bill, which will result in a relatively small increase in business costs, as the OBR points out, a more efficient use of labour and an increase in productivity.
In the face of 14 years of serious underinvestment in the foundations of economic growth—the health of the workforce, education and skills, transport, criminal justice and defence—increased taxation is a regrettable necessity. That the Chancellor has managed both to provide a fiscal boost and to stabilise government finances is to be applauded. That she has, by the measures outlined in this Bill, chosen a taxation strategy that will enhance the efficient use of labour and produce vital increases in productivity deserves not just high praise but the total support of this House.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we have heard a lot from the Minister and just now from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, about the alleged terrible situation in which the previous Government left the current Government. I have been known to criticise the previous Government myself, and there is a degree of truth in the criticism that we were too ready to resort to spending and to tax and national insurance increases. Indeed, I spoke in Cabinet against the previous effort to increase national insurance; it was one of the reasons why I left that Cabinet a few months later. However, in mitigation of the previous Government and some of their predecessors, that was not unique; it followed the trend established over the past 20 or 30 years to increase the size of the state, push up taxation and spending, and increase the pressure on the private sector.
It is that reality of the past 30 years that makes what we have heard from the Minister and the Government more broadly—the suggestion that they are fixing the foundations and marking a moment of change—so ludicrous and ridiculous. The Government like to claim that they are marking a different path, when the truth is that they are just doubling down on the path that has been set for the past 30 years. There is no change in this at all other than in size and in the energy driving us to a larger state, with higher taxes and higher spending.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked about understanding arithmetic, but the arithmetic that I find hard to understand is why it is thought to be a change of direction when the plan in this Budget is to push up public borrowing £20 billion or £30 billion higher than it would have been under the previous Government’s plan, even though taxation is going up by another £30 billion or £40 billion every year. Despite all that, the deficit is still 1% of GDP higher than it would have been at the end of this fiscal period under the previous Government. How is that fixing the foundations? It is doubling down on the trend and making the situation worse. We know that the consequences will be lower growth, less dynamism and lower wealth for the country as a whole.
The specific tax change that we are looking at in this Second Reading debate is a major part of that problem. It is a well understood principle in economics that if you tax a thing you get less of that thing, and if you tax jobs you will get fewer jobs. Even now, Britain has one of the lowest tax wedges in the OECD—the gap between what employers have to pay employees and what they actually receive. European economies with typically higher tax wedges have many more problems with youth unemployment and long-term unemployment. Countries with very high tax wedges, such as Germany, Spain and Italy, have long-term unemployment more than one-third higher than ours. Spain’s is two-thirds higher, Belgium’s is nearly twice as high and Italy’s is highly still. With these measures—and the new employment regulation that is coming our way soon, no doubt—we are heading the same way too. Hiring is falling already, at 23% lower than a year ago. The OBR forecasts a lower participation rate—the “drag” from employer national insurance contributions, as it puts it, which boosts the decline in the participation rate by 50%.
The Government know perfectly well that this effect exists, even if they do not want to acknowledge it more than they have to. We can tell that they know that it exists because they are having to compensate the public sector to mitigate the problem. In so doing, they are reinforcing a divide that already exists between the public and private sectors. My noble friend Lord Forsyth alluded to this just now. Wages are already higher in the public sector and pensions are much more generous. Now the Government are beginning to establish the principle that the public sector should be protected from the consequences of the Government’s own decisions—just like the French nobility before the revolution, who did not pay the taxes imposed on everybody else. It did not end well for them and it will not end well for the Government, or for this country, if they create a privileged class that does not contribute to economic growth but just feeds off it.
As a result of this, we are seeing much more complexity, yet we need simplicity, not complexity, in the way our fiscal and tax systems work. The principle that is being established means that if you are fortunate enough to be on the payroll of the public sector you are shielded from some of these changes, but if you are unlucky enough merely to supply the public sector—for example, as has been said, a car firm taking special needs patients to hospital—or if you merely carry out public sector functions, such as hospices, then you will be on your own. As a result, we are going to see—indeed, we are already seeing—ever-increasing and, in many cases, entirely reasonable demands for exemptions or changes to the rules from those who happen to fall beyond this boundary. There will be new reasons to lobby, new reasons to generate complexity and new reasons to push up costs over time.
The last thing we need is more taxation. I urge noble Lords to look at the OBR’s fascinating historical public finances databank—I find it fascinating, anyway. It shows that, after the Autumn Budget, we now have public sector spending at around its highest level ever, outside the world wars and the pandemic, and taxation is at the highest level it has ever been in this country, even during wartime.
It is true that we are seeing huge strains on the public sector—courts, schools, roads, transport and so on. That is obvious, but we are seeing those not because taxes are too low but because growth is too low. We are exhausting the capacity of the economy to pay for the public goods that we all want to see. There is only one way to resolve that problem, which is to get the boot off the private sector and allow it to generate wealth. The Minister spoke of stability. We all want stability, but there are different kinds of stability and, if we are not careful, we are going to get the stability of the morgue in the British economy. We need activity, dynamism, change, energy and growth. Reversing the trends that we are on against all those things is of huge importance. That, by the way, is why it is so important that Committee on this Bill should be on the Floor of the House.
There is no manifesto commitment to this measure and it is right that we do everything possible to reduce its impact. The non-crisis British state is the biggest it has ever been, and any responsible Government will be trying to reduce it—for example, to what some, at least, regard as the halcyon days of the first Blair term, when the state was a whole 10 percentage points of GDP smaller and, not coincidentally, trend growth was a whole 1% of GDP higher. The current route of spending more and producing less will drive people out of work, crush growth and lead this country to penury, and these NIC measures will take us one further step down that road. The Government need to think again.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this Bill delivers one of the most destructive policies invented by this Labour Government. I will not deal with the fact that it breaks a manifesto promise, though it does, or talk about its impact on much of the social fabric of our land, from charities to childcare, though the damage that it will do is immense. Instead, I will focus on its impact on businesses and the onward impact on their customers and employees.
First, let us get a couple of things out of the way. The Minister gave us his usual diatribe about the so-called black hole which the Government allege that they inherited. He must be getting embarrassed about going on about this all the time. He knows that the Office for Budget Responsibility has not backed the Government’s story on the black hole. He knows that a fair chunk of the £22 billion can be ascribed to the massive pay increases given to some public sector workers in return for zero productivity. He must also know that an even bigger black hole is already emerging as the economy goes into reverse as a result of the Budget and as some spending promises excluded from it have to be funded. No more nonsense, please, about black holes.
While we are at it, I hope we will have no more nonsense about the Truss mini-Budget. It did not crash the economy. GDP certainly did not crash—in fact, its trajectory hardly budged. However, since Labour came to power, growth has ground to a halt. There was a dislocation in bond markets and interest rates peaked but, as the Bank of England’s analysis has shown, the Bank itself was to blame for at least two-thirds of that, due mainly to its negligent oversight of LDI pension strategies. As my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Forsyth have pointed out, interest rates are now higher than they were after the Truss Budget, whether you look at the short-term gilt rate, the long-term gilt rate or the premium over the bund rate. All this feeds into today’s mortgage rates, and the Government need to own the fact that it is their Budget that is having an impact on today’s mortgage costs. It is very clear which Budget has been worse for people with mortgages.
The Chancellor has dressed up her dreadful policy choice on national insurance by saying:
“We are asking businesses to contribute more”,—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/24; col. 818.]
as if businesses themselves will be paying more tax to fund the public expenditure largesse in the Budget. This has been exposed as at best naive and at worst downright misleading by a host of commentators, starting with the Office for Budget Responsibility and going on through many others. Not a single analysis shows that businesses will be “contributing more”, except in the narrow technical sense that they will be writing cheques to HMRC for the increased national insurance bills. All the analysis points to the impact ending up on jobs, prices and wages.
The OBR reckoned that, even in the first year—2025-26 —60% would be passed on to employees and consumers and that this would rise to 76% by the second year. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has pointed to higher unemployment and weaker wage growth. This is not theory. The Bank of England’s decision-maker panel in December found that, while most businesses expect lower profit margins, over 50% expect to raise prices and reduce numbers and 40% expect to lower wages.
The policy is highly regressive, which ought to worry the Benches opposite. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted the disproportionate impact on employing people at the bottom end of the wage scale. The NI changes mean that the cost of employing somebody on the minimum wage will rise by 3.2%, compared with 2.5% for those on median wages and 1.8% for those earning twice the median wage. The Centre for Policy Studies has taken this further by calculating the tax burden on labour, known as the tax wedge: overall, the tax wedge for someone on minimum wage will rise to 21.3%, which is even higher than the figure we inherited in 2010 from Gordon Brown.
When businesses come to manage these increased costs, the option of lower wage rates does not exist for those on minimum wage, and so we can expect employers to reduce their numbers instead. Higher up the wage scale, employers will be looking to reduce wages as well as numbers. National data are already showing weak job vacancies, and recruitment companies, which are often the canary in the mine, are issuing profit warnings, as employers are already turning away from recruitment.
What does all of this add up to? The pain of job losses for employees will knock on to higher unemployment benefits; lower profits and wages will result in lower taxes for the Exchequer; and all of us will face rising prices which will feed into inflation, thereby keeping interest rates higher than they would otherwise have been. It is hard to think of a more disastrous economic policy, especially in the context of a Budget which could not have been more anti-growth if it had tried.
Business confidence has been in retreat since before the Budget. Businesses are now facing an unholy trinity of national insurance rises, significant increases in the minimum wage—especially for younger employees—and the Government’s employment law reforms. This is not an environment in which businesses will want to invest. Indeed, many sectors will face retrenchment. This morning, the British Chambers of Commerce said that many of its members expect to cut back on investment. The British Retail Consortium has warned of shop closures. Hospitality businesses will be on insolvency watch. This is no way to grow the economy. The Government’s growth mission is starting to look like mission impossible.
The Government must be wondering whether the gain is worth the pain. The OBR calculated the static yield from national insurance increases as £26 billion by the end of the Budget forecast period, but it then forecast that the net yield would fall to only £16 billion, due to the direct and indirect behavioural impacts. In addition, the Government have said that they will fund the public sector for the additional costs which will fall on to public sector employers, amounting to around £5 billion. It is inevitable that the public sector will have to pay more for public services provided by private sector suppliers when they pass on the extra costs in prices. So we have all this pain for businesses, employees and consumers, plus the opportunity cost of lost economic growth, for a net figure which is probably south of £10 billion. That is just two-thirds of 1% of the Government’s total expenditure at the end of the Budget period. Is it worth it?
Lord Scriven (LD)
To govern is to choose. That is what the Labour Government have done: they have chosen to implement an increase in national insurance contributions, with a 1.25 percentage point rise for many providing care and support in health and social care sectors. That choice has implications for the provision of health and social care, and the Government either are ignoring those impacts or have no idea of the consequences of NIC increases on NHS dentists, NHS community pharmacists, hospices, NHS GPs and social care providers. Any policy that impacts the financial ecosystem of health and social care deserves close scrutiny, which is what I will focus on in my contribution to this Second Reading debate.
The ripple effects of this NIC increase will be felt across the entire sector, from GPs and community pharmacists to hospices, dentists and social care providers; every corner of the health and care system will experience the impact. Of course, it is important to consider the context of the NHS and social care system left to the nation by the previous Conservative Government. Having listened to a few contributions from the Conservative Benches, I think a sense of self-reflection is needed to work out exactly what was left: a backlog of 7.75 million people waiting for NHS treatment in England; a recruitment and retention problem for healthcare and social care professionals and a failure to tackle workforce shortages; and an inability to stabilise care provision that left some care providers on the brink of insolvency.
Today, many GP surgeries are already struggling with financial pressures and workforce shortages. The British Medical Association has warned that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will exacerbate those issues. Practices will be forced to allocate more funds to staffing costs rather than patient care. As my noble friend Lady Kramer pointed out, research by my own party has revealed that the NIC hike could end up costing GP surgeries the equivalent of more than 2 million appointments a year because of the additional £125.5 million bill inflicted on them.
Community pharmacies, often the first point of contact for minor illnesses and health advice, already operate on tight margins. The new national insurance contributions increase will mean an extra £50 million per annum for this sector. According to the National Pharmacy Association, rising national insurance costs could push small pharmacies into unsustainable financial territory, threatening accessibility for patients.
Hospices, which rely heavily on charitable donations and limited government funding, may also face increased financial strain. Research has highlighted that the additional costs of the NIC hike will force hospices to scale back services if they cannot attract more public donations. The cost to the average hospice is likely to be in the region of £200,000 per year.
The British Dental Association has expressed concerns that rising costs will further discourage dentists from providing NHS services, worsening the existing crisis in dental care availability.
Social care is also set to be pummelled by the rise in national insurance contributions. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It has emphasised that the social care sector, already facing a staffing crisis and chronic underfunding, will struggle to absorb these additional costs without significant reform.
The scale of the consequences of the NIC rise is worrying; it will destabilise many providers of health and social care. According to the LGA, councils in England face a combined social care funding gap of £3.6 billion. As welcome as the extra £600 million announced in the Budget for social care is, it will not even touch the surface of the problem. Also, according to the Nuffield Trust, the extra NIC increase for social care will add some £900 million in extra costs to the sector, which is more than the £600 million that the Government have put into social care. Was the £600 million meant to cover the social care costs or to ease the cost pressures that were already in the system before the NIC increase?
The British Dental Association reports that 40 million NHS dental appointments were lost during the pandemic. It points out that the additional financial pressure of the NIC hike is likely to further limit recovery efforts and drive more dentists away from NHS provision.
Before the increased national insurance costs were announced, a survey by the National Pharmacy Association found that 72% of small pharmacy owners were worried about their ability to stay afloat in the next five years. The average cost to a community pharmacy of this increase has been calculated at just over £12,000. One community pharmacist asked me to ask the Minister what she should do, as this national insurance increase will mean her having to sack 1.5 members of her staff or close for the equivalent of one day a week. What advice would the Minister give to her and to other pharmacists in a similar situation?
We on these Benches feel that this national insurance increase on health and social care provision would be self-defeating and have the unintended consequence of inflicting more misery on patients and those needing social care. We urge the Government to urgently rethink this increase in national insurance or risk the ability of some providers to continue providing the same level of care. The Minister must surely recognise that this national insurance hike will only pile more pressure on to our health and care services, which are already under enormous strain.
The Government must urgently rethink this decision, make an exemption from this hike for vital health and care providers, and not burden GPs, dentists, community pharmacists, hospices and care providers with higher costs that some will find impossible to fund. It is no good coming back with the meaningless formula of words that the Government are trotting out parrot-fashion on this issue: “This will be dealt with in the contract and funding arrangements for the next financial year”. We are talking about thousands of small businesses and charities, from GPs to hospices, that are having to make plans on service reductions now due to these NIC hikes. They need to plan and have certainty that these government-imposed increases are covered in full. The Government have made it clear that they will cover in full the costs for NHS trusts. If they can do it for NHS trusts and state very clearly now, with clarity and certainty, that they will not have to pay it, why the two-tier system for GPs, dentists, community pharmacies, hospices and social care providers?
Other choices were available to the Government in dealing with how funding could be raised to spend on health and social care, rather than this self-defeating national insurance contribution hike. My party has proposed alternative funding mechanisms. For example, we proposed several tax reforms to generate additional revenue for the health service and social care. Key proposals included a capital gains tax overhaul, introducing a progressive structure with three bands. This reform would have raised approximately £5 billion for health and social care. Implementing higher levies on banks and the very affluent would have raised an extra £9.8 billion package for social care and the NHS. Exploring these options could create a more equitable and effective funding system without clobbering health and care providers with these unsustainable extra costs.
The increase in national insurance contributions seems to represent a “make it up as we go along” policy by the Government when it comes to the effects on the health and social care sector. It brings significant challenges to many health and care providers, with no clarity or certainty from the Government. The Government must now say whether and how they will fund the full national insurance contribution hikes for GPs, hospices, community pharmacies, NHS dentists and social care providers, address the unintended consequences and give certainty in the planning of services that are now being made. Failure to do so will lead to further problems for our NHS and social care services that will have a negative impact for those seeking care.
The Minister can choose today to give certainty to those people and businesses that they will be exempted from this national insurance contribution hike. Failure to do so will mean that jobs and services will be reduced, as people are planning now. If he does not give that assurance, I will support my noble friend’s amendment if she presses it.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, in contributing to the debate on this Bill, I should declare my interest as a trustee of two charitable music organisations, which, like other charities, including hospices and those that help the homeless, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others, will now have the challenge of raising more money to cover the additional employment costs of their charitable activities. However, that is not, by any means, the limit of my concerns. The most damaging impact of this Bill, as others have pointed out, is on businesses and wealth creation.
I confess I have some sympathy with the Minister and the Chancellor, because, as the OBR has pointed out, the escalating costs of social welfare from an ageing population and the growing number of inactive adults outside the workforce, many of whom are on long-term sickness benefits, risk creating an unsupportable rise in government spending in the coming decades without much faster economic growth than we have historically achieved. Indeed, the OBR projection showed that, without changes, government expenditure could rise, year by year, to reach over 60% of GDP by 2070, which is well above any viable level of taxation.
The current levels of government debt may be bearable, but continuing to add to that to fund ongoing deficits risks UK debt becoming unsustainable long before 2070. As a recent report from this House’s Economic Affairs Committee set out, confronting this challenge during this Parliament is essential and would have been essential whichever party was in power; it happens to be on this Chancellor’s watch to have to address it. However, that is where my sympathy ends because, as others have said, the way the Government have chosen to address it, by raising NICs on employers, is the worst possible response. It is a short-term Treasury fix that does nothing to address the long-term challenge.
Everyone agrees that a major part of the solution has to be growing the economy, which comes about only by successful businesses growing their output and creating more wealth to fund consumption and services. The left in politics have never understood that when you tax businesses, it is not a painless confiscation of surplus profits. Most businesses are competing in markets where they have to fight to earn a return on capital that they invest. As others have pointed out, raising costs on employment has real consequences: higher prices, fewer jobs, lower wages, less wealth creation; and the direct impact falls on some of the poorest in society, who suffer from the higher prices and reduced employment prospects. Another impact of adding to the costs of domestic industry is to damage exports and encourage imports, which further shrinks UK output and wealth creation. By damaging growth, this policy will therefore worsen the long-term challenge of balancing the Government’s budget deficit and not resolve it.
The Minister and the Chancellor understandably ask, if we do not like this policy, what the alternatives are. I suggest that the answer has to be supporting business wealth creation by keeping business taxes low, while taking determined action to check the runaway costs of public spending that the OBR projections show. There are two areas that are critical to achieving this. First, there is an urgent need to restructure our broken benefits system, which too rapidly abandons support for those who suffer temporary sickness or unemployment and simply passports them through to long-term sickness benefits. Sadly, once people are on those benefits, there is little practical help and encouragement under our current system to support them in getting back to an active role. They are, in effect, abandoned and stranded, with high personal cost to them and high and growing budgetary costs to the Exchequer. That has to be fixed. I am pleased that Ministers have been open in acknowledging this challenge—it is a start—but we need urgent action to address it. Can the Minister give any update on the timetable for the Government’s review of the structure of the benefits system?
Secondly, we need to confront the overall problem of public sector productivity. A recent report by the Resolution Foundation calculated that public sector pay is now 6% higher than in the private sector, but sadly this is not reflected by higher public sector productivity. Over the 20 years up to the end of 2019—I picked that year because it was prior to the pandemic—ONS data shows that productivity per hour in government services fell by an average of 0.3% per year. That is a reduction in output per hour worked of almost 7% over those 20 years. While it has recovered from the low point of the pandemic, public sector productivity today is still below 2019 levels. By contrast, the productivity of production industries grew by an average of 2.9% per annum over the same 20-year period. This matters because public sector employment is forecast to rise again under this Government to almost 19% of the workforce.
Our productivity challenge in the UK is not primarily a private sector problem; ite of tmost businesses have been fighting to improve costs, year in and year out. This country’s productivity problem is primarily a public sector drag on the economy. Dealing with it is not only critical to avoid this and future tax rises but essential to growth. It is an inescapable equation that our overall GDP is simply the size of the workforce multiplied by its productivity, so unless we grow productivity, we will not raise living standards. If we grow public sector spending without productivity gains, we will make this drag on growth only worse.
I recognise that neither party in government has a great record on public sector productivity, but all the fall in productivity in the 20 years I referred to earlier happened during the first 10 years of the last Labour Government. The Labour party is proud of its relationship with the trade unions, the members of which have to deliver these productivity gains. I ask the Minister if the Government will work with the unions to set a target for public sector productivity gains in this Parliament to match those in the private sector. Nothing else will solve our long-term problems.
These are the real actions needed to address the sustainability of public finances. Instead, we are looking at a proposal that is the worst possible response to the challenges we face, undermining rather than fixing the foundations of the economy and damaging some of our most vital charitable and other service institutions. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I confess that I was intrigued by one former Conservative Prime Minister’s line of attack on the Bill. Liz Truss criticised what she described as “unfunded tax rises”. I am still trying to figure out what that means, but it is crystal clear that Liz Truss’s £45 billion-worth of unfunded tax cuts played a significant part in getting us into a mess in the first place. People will not forgive or forget that legacy: the NHS and prisons are at breaking point, mortgages are soaring and pay packets have been cut in real terms, resulting in the biggest wave of industrial strife on record in this country since the 1980s.
Turning around this sorry performance will take more than the six months Labour has had in office so far, but the new Government are already putting in place the foundations for a sustainable recovery: reform of planning and pension funds; an industrial strategy, with better education and skills; stronger trade relations with the EU; and a new deal to make work pay, which in turn will help boost consumer demand and so encourage business investment. Critically, the Bill provides for public investment to deliver fair growth in every corner of the country, to help close the prosperity and health gap. According to the Health Foundation, in 21st-century Britain, the chances are that, if you are born poor, you will die younger. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Bill will help tackle the obscene inequality of geography and class that Labour has inherited.
The Opposition are quick to criticise Labour’s programme to get Britain back on its feet but coy about what they would do instead. If the Conservative Party believes that a better way to balance the books is to raise taxes on working families, slash welfare for the sick, cut pay for public servants—the workers once patted on the back as Covid heroes—and usher in a new era of austerity for public services, the party should say so. In the absence of that, this debate on employers’ national insurance should at least be rooted in evidence.
I thank the House of Lords Library for its briefing. It cites HMRC figures that show, just as the Minister pointed out, that the number of employers that will see no change or that will benefit from these NI changes outstrips those that will pay more. The IFS confirms that, with the doubling of employment allowance and other support, smaller employers will be least affected. In the context of a historic squeeze on the living standards of working people, large employers are being asked to dig a little deeper to pay for a healthier, better educated and better skilled workforce, from which they will benefit too. Surely it is only right that big business pays its way.
One Conservative apparently once agreed with that principle. In 2021, Rishi Sunak announced that he would reverse previous Conservative corporation tax cuts in one leap, taking it from 19% to 25%. The then Chancellor said that it was
“fair and necessary to ask”
business
“to contribute to our recovery”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/21; col. 256.]
I have heard the argument that, even in a relatively tight labour market, employers somehow will have no choice but to offload the extra NI costs on to customers and their own workforce, but there is no such automatic link between employer taxes and NI contributions on the one hand and prices and pay on the other. When previous Conservative Governments radically cut corporation tax, that did not, after all, automatically lead to lower prices in the shops or higher rewards for workers—far from it.
Businesses of course have choices about how to cover these NI increases. They can absorb them by raising productivity, they can invest in new skills, kit and technology, and they can restrain excessive top pay and profits. There is scope to do so. The latest ONS figures show that, for the service sector—the sector most affected by NI costs—the net profit rate has risen to 15.1%. Analysis of the accounts of 17,000 companies by the trade union Unite found that pre-tax profit margins were 30% higher in 2022 compared with the average across 2018 and 2019. Post-tax margins were, on average, 20% higher. Studies by the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank also concluded that rising corporate profits are contributing to higher inflation.
Everyone wants Britain to be a great place to work, to invest and to do good business, but to achieve that goal we need fairness and change. This country is undeniably in a dire state of disrepair. We desperately need to strengthen the NHS, schools, colleges and local communities. Businesses need cheaper, cleaner energy. Productivity and living standards must rise. To do all that we need investment, and that is what this Bill is about.
Over the Conservative Party’s 14 years in power, come rain or shine, the roof was never fixed. Now it is Labour’s responsibility—indeed, its duty—to get the job done.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first seek your Lordships’ indulgence in paying my personal tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. As we have already heard, she was always constructive in her engagement in the Chamber but also, importantly, outside it. I know so: I worked with her on legislation during my tenure as a Transport Minister. I was also very much on the receiving end of her very insightful and quite pointed questions. She was a pleasure to work with, and, as noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House have said, she will be remembered with love and affection. Our prayers go to her friends and family, and to our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. She represented her party, her sector and, indeed, your Lordships’ House with great dedication and devotion.
We return after Christmas—the season of good will—and the celebrations of the new year with hopes in our hearts for the year ahead. Yet regrettably, as we come together for the first substantial debate in your Lordships’ House, for many across our country the words “good will” and “celebration” ring somewhat hollow. We have now had six months of a Labour Government and, despite the assurances which were given, the report card makes for disappointing reading: broken promises and, indeed, betrayals.
On education, this Government’s ill-judged education tax, which comes into play today, is shrouded in a narrative of taxing those who are more affluent to raise more for schools in the state sector. Of course we want state sector schools to improve, but, as we have heard already, this ignores the pleas of those children with special educational needs, the small independent sector schools that I know have had to close, including some in my area, and the extra burden on local authorities with no school places. It also—I emphasise this point—taxes the aspirations of hard-working parents. I say to the Minister that yes, those who choose to send their children to private school, often by making great sacrifices and using their savings, are hard-working people as well. Most significantly, this action has disrupted the education of our most important asset for the future: the next generation, our children. If, as reports suggest, there is only a 10% to 15% migration to the state sector, that means no extra revenue for the Exchequer, and yes, they will also be hit by the Government’s proposals on national insurance—the subject of today’s debate.
Sadly and tragically, Labour has also betrayed many pensioners with another broken promise over winter fuel payments at a time when those among the most vulnerable need it most—those who have worked hard and contributed to our great country’s wealth and prosperity over the years. They deserve our compassion and care, yet their pleas have also not been heard. So the message we are hearing in many sectors across society is: if you are at the start of your life in education or a pensioner seeking peace in retirement, Labour is not working; Labour is not working for you.
The national insurance hikes are having a detrimental and damaging effect on the very engines of growth that the Government claimed they supported and which fuel the economy and productivity: our private sector, our charitable sectors and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises—the backbone of the British economy. In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, said that the changes to employer NICs were necessary
“to raise the revenues required to fund our public services and restore economic stability”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/24; col. 818.]
At best the jury is out on whether this will raise the necessary funds for our public services, and we are already seeing that economic stability has not been achieved. We have heard about gilt prices. Five-year gilt prices have been trading above the threshold set by the OBR itself since November. Costs of borrowing are up—points already so clearly flagged by several of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Forsyth and, of course, Lord Frost. Growth has stalled. Interest rates, which seek to stimulate demand and ease the burden on business and working people, have stood still. This has also meant that fiscal headroom has shrunk, so what will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do now? Will there be another tax hike?
Businesses are suffering. We can use all the rhetoric we like, but that is the bottom line. As we have already heard, the number of businesses planning to raise prices in the coming months has jumped sharply as increases in the UK Budget in tax and wage costs caused confidence to slump. The British Chambers of Commerce has confirmed this. About 55% of companies said they were planning to increase prices in the next three months—my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to that. Prices are going up—inflation.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth so eloquently highlighted, the cost to businesses is rising, with an increase of £800 per employee—that is the bottom line. The noble Baroness who spoke just now, who I respect greatly, talked about the overall impact on businesses, but I too read that report and it is marginal. About 200,000 businesses or so will benefit and I agree that about 800,000 will remain the same, but close to a million—900,000-odd—will see their bill increase. They will pay more across the board. That is not me as a Conservative Peer saying it; that is what HMRC is saying: they are the Government’s own figures.
The CBI warns that two-thirds of firms are looking to cut their hiring plans. It said:
“Our survey showed half are now looking to reduce headcount. And almost two-thirds are looking to cut their plans to hire”.
So, along with inflation, we now have prospects of unemployment as well. I ask the Minister for a response. These are facts; this is what business and HMRC are saying. People are suffering. You do not need to be an economist to understand that you do not get growth if you tax the people who are the very engines of growth.
On the rhetoric of a fictional black hole and a poor inheritance, which we have heard repeatedly, I say to the Minister: we are a mature House. We have reasoned, balanced debates, so less of that and more on substance. People are seeing through it. Let us get serious. People are suffering. We are dealing with real people, real businesses and real lives.
I had the privilege before Christmas to attend a dinner celebrating the success of British Asian business. I say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that there were plenty of billionaires in that room. Indeed, there was £165 billion-worth of business at that reception. But sadly, the conversations were not about what is next and the prospects for their next steps in terms of expansion; they were about the Government’s approach to taxing what they saw as aspiration—taxing success. I know: I am part of that generation. Many who came to this country made Britain their home and became part of those very economic engines that fuel our economy today. They were talking the language of relocation and moving to other jurisdictions where aspiration and business success would be celebrated.
I commend the speech of my noble friend Lord Blackwell. I listened to his thoughtful and insightful remarks on the necessary public sector reform, which is an important element in ensuring that we move forward as a successful country and should not be forgotten.
Not a single Peer in your Lordships’ House would not agree with the sentiments I am about to express. We all love our country, the opportunities it affords and the success of our people, and we want to see our country prosper and grow. To ensure that prosperity and growth happen, we need to feed the very backbone of our economic growth—our businesses across all sectors, and SMEs in particular. They are truly the wealth creators and need to be given tools and support to survive, prosper and grow. Yet today, as many have said to me quite directly, they face daunting costs. The prospects for some are that their sheer survival is on the brink. The Government must listen and, as others have said, think again.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, charities of every kind are seeing massive increases in demand for their services. Many provide essential support and vital services to all parts of our society—to the vulnerable, the elderly and the homeless, and for children’s services, medical research and many other needs. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Dartington Hall Trust.
The increases in employers’ national insurance contributions, the living wage and the cost of utilities, goods and services have added huge financial burdens to charities’ budgets. Many have had no option but to cut costs, which means that services will be cut. Today, I add my voice to their concerns.
Delivering almost £17 billion worth of public services every year, many charities also provide support when public services fall short, without receiving any public funding. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the NCVO, charities employ almost 1 million people and raise money to provide services that would otherwise need to be commissioned by government. The NCVO and the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the ACEVO, recently issued a letter to the Chancellor outlining their concerns for a sector that was already under considerable strain. The NCVO’s initial estimates have found that the employer national insurance contribution increases will place an annual additional bill of £1.4 billion on charities. The letter goes on to say:
“The harsh reality is that many organisations may be forced to reduce staff, cut salaries, and most importantly, scale back services for the very people they strive to support”.
By way of an example, and as my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, Marie Curie needs to find an extra £3 million each year to meet the increase. Essex & Herts Air Ambulance has reported that the change will cost it an additional £100,000 that would otherwise be directed towards other missions. Bridge Support, a charity devoted to providing essential mental health and recovery services, reported that its stretched budgets will have to absorb these additional costs, while its counterparts in the NHS and other statutory services will remain exempt.
These charities provide essential services: life-saving interventions that are not just nice-to-haves but must-haves. NCVO researchers have found that almost three out of four charities are withdrawing from public service delivery or are considering doing so, and most are reducing their services to reduce costs. It is a perfect storm of cost escalation while funding is in decline.
My noble friend Lady Fraser is extremely sorry not to be able to attend this important debate. She is CEO of the charity Cerebral Palsy Scotland and is having to deal with the practical implications of this policy at the coalface. She is conducting meetings about where and how to cut staff, and therefore services, to fund the increased tax burden. Anna Fowlie, the chief executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, wrote that many charities
“have already had to subsidise public services with their own funds, and increasingly we are hearing of organisations having to close their doors”.
I am very worried about the future, as to me it makes little sense for the Government to hamper the ability of those picking up the slack to do so. Have the Government made provision to fill the gaps in essential services that charities provide when they are unable to do so? How will the Government fund the services presently provided by the voluntary sector? As the NCVO and the ACEVO have asked, why can the Government not commit to reimbursing or exempting voluntary organisations’ increased employer national insurance contributions in the same way as they will for the public sector? After all, the biggest assets in charities are people, the largest costs are people, and employing people has just got significantly more expensive.
With all that in mind, I ask the Minister when the impact statement for the Bill will be published. I intend to seek an amendment to the Bill in Committee to ensure that the Government provide an impact statement, unless the Minister can tell us today when it will be published.
The Government have launched their civil society covenant, which talks about resetting their relationship with the voluntary sector. It talks of the essential role of working as partners with the sector, which is welcome, but the Bill does not strengthen the foundations of a stronger civil society. Rather than taxing, we should be supporting or, at the very least, exempting.
I know the Government and the Minister want our charities to thrive, but I fear that the Bill will hurt them. So many are feeling desperate. The Government must find a way to protect and support them. Doing so would demonstrate that they mean what they say and would illustrate that they truly want a productive relationship with the voluntary and charity sector.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House I have stressed that investors, be they domestic, foreign, international, private or institutional, are willing to tolerate high taxes or regulation, but not both. It is the Government’s job to calibrate and recalibrate this delicate balance in the pursuit of investment and growth.
On the rise in employer national insurance contributions, there are at least four reasons indicating that a rethink of this policy is urgently required. First, as has already been mentioned, there is the tangible impact that this tax rise will have on the economy through actual and forecast employment. The Confederation of British Industry, the CBI, expects higher employment costs to reduce jobs in the private sector by 176,000 at the end of 2026, and business investment to be down by £6 billion. Job creation in Britain is already falling, with data showing that in the three months to November 2024, job vacancies reached their lowest number since May 2021 at approximately 818,000, indicating low job creation in the United Kingdom’s economy. Clearly, a tax increase on employers will only worsen the prospects for job creation.
Secondly, this national insurance rise adds inflationary pressure. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the OBR, expects that in the near term, higher NI will add 0.2% to the consumer prices index as a result of firms passing on part of the cost to consumers. That is of particular concern as inflation, at 2.6% last November, remains above the 2% Bank of England target. Noble Lords will have seen today that Germany has already seen a rise in its inflation, which is very worrying for us. These factors make the prospects for economic growth worse, not better, particularly after the last two consecutive months of flatlining growth under this Labour Government.
Thirdly, over time and all being equal, this tax-induced low economic growth will reduce the Government’s tax take and bring real vulnerabilities around fiscal stability and the funding of public services—the very reason, we have been told, for this tax rise in the first place.
Fourthly, perhaps most damaging is the message that this tax rise sends to private sector investors and business. This tax adds to an already expanding list of reasons for investors not to see the UK as a serious destination for the levels of investment and business that could drive economic growth. Already, according to a June 2024 report by the IPPR, Britain has the lowest investment rate of any G7 country at 17% of GDP while the rest are above 20%. Worse still, this economy has trailed other G7 countries in investment for 30 years, since the 1990s. This is not making that situation better. It is worth stressing that, if the United Kingdom had maintained an average G7 investment level over the past 30 years, it could have added £1.9 trillion of investment or 80% of the country’s annual GDP.
The story gets worse. Recent reports state that the London Stock Exchange is on course for its worst year for departures since the 2008 global financial crisis. This tax does not help reverse that situation. According to the London Stock Exchange Group, in 2024 a net total of 70 companies delisted or transferred their primary listing from London’s main market. The number of new listings is on course to be the lowest in 15 years, as initial public offerings remain scarce. It is impossible to see a path to long-term sustainable economic growth without a vibrant capital market. Therefore, it is essential to make the UK more attractive to companies, employers and broader capital market formation, but this tax does not do that.
Meanwhile, as has already been intimated, small and medium-sized enterprises are the centrepiece of any country’s economic success and clearly of this economy too, yet more than 80% of Britain’s 5.5 million SMEs will be impacted by this tax. These trends underscore a more fundamental and structural point that the UK is in danger of being seen as a place where investment and risk-taking are inadvertently discouraged and where risk-takers face unlimited downsides but their upside is constrained by taxes and curtailed by what is seen as an unwelcoming business and investment environment. Furthermore, this tax will undermine efforts by the Government to boost the UK’s attractiveness through their proposed market reforms. If this Bill ultimately progresses it adds to the UK’s growing reputation as a place where you can certainly lose but not easily win.
I began my remarks today by stating that business can accommodate high taxes or high regulation but not both. The Government have spoken about reducing regulatory burdens, and this is to the point about what we should be doing instead. Reducing regulatory burdens is an obvious one. This is where the Government should focus their efforts and accelerate this process. The Government must reconsider this increase in employer’s NI, specifically looking at, for example, raising the threshold above £5,000. This alone will go some way to reducing the negative impacts that are clearly already being felt across this economy.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an employer who will be adversely affected by the employer’s national insurance contribution increase and the proposed reduction in the threshold for paying it.
Market economics is simple. It is a fact that, as you lower prices, you sell more goods. You need only look at supermarkets to see daily evidence of this, whether it be two for one or prices being slashed. Conversely, if you increase the price of goods or services, they become more difficult to sell. People resist price increases. There are, of course, exceptions because of special circumstances, but the marketplace sooner or later inevitably reverts to normal. Do His Majesty’s Government understand this very simple fact that putting up prices reduces the amount of goods or services sold? If the Government cannot understand this, should they be entrusted with running the country? If the Government do understand the way in which market economics work, why do they not understand that increasing the cost of employment will lead to a reduction in the number of those employed in the same way that a supermarket putting up a price will lead to a reduction in sales of that item?
Today we are debating the proposed increase in employer’s national insurance. This comes on top of the increase in the minimum wage in the previous Budget. An increase in the minimum wage does not affect just the lower paid but means an increase all round. Your skilled worker does not want to be paid the same as a less skilled colleague; he or she wants to maintain the differential. The compounding effect on costs of even a small increase in the basic wage is dramatic. If the increase we are debating today is passed, we will end up with fewer people employed and the Government will consequently collect less tax. They will also most likely end up with a larger number of those requiring state assistance as redundancies are made. I would be most grateful if the Minister would be good enough to explain how these increases in the cost of employment will defy market economics. How will there not be a detrimental impact on employment and the economy as a whole? The Minister said in his opening remarks that the Government’s plans will wipe the slate clean—fat chance of that; they will make things worse.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Howard. I am delighted to participate in this important debate. I should say straightaway that I am absolutely opposed to any rise in employer’s national insurance contributions, especially at this time when we need to get the economy growing, which we have heard a lot about this evening.
This increase stems, I think, directly from an outdated political stance that has always failed to recognise that there are inevitable costs for employees that come from raising the cost of their employment. In April, the rate is to rise by 1.2% to 15%, and payment kicks in at a much lower threshold of £5,000, down from £9,100, which is a significant rise in employers’ costs.
Looking back, it was rather misleading, to say the least, of the Government to try to soothe nerves in their election manifesto by telling us that there would be no rise in national insurance contributions, and it was not made clear during the following election campaign that this was actually only ever a commitment not to raise employees’ contributions. Instead, job numbers and wages will doubtless fall because of the increased cost to employers. How is that helpful to the working people who our Prime Minister is always talking about as being so important? The answer, of course, is not at all. This is indeed a tax on working people as well as their employers.
We are already seeing in advance the damaging effect kicking in. The number of jobs on offer across the country has already sunk, as we have been hearing. The Institute of Directors recently reported that business confidence has nosedived to levels last seen in April 2020, along with employer hiring intentions, and that 43% of businesses facing higher national insurance contributions are planning to reduce employment as a direct result.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised concerns that businesses may turn to alternative employment models such as outsourcing, offshoring or increasing reliance on self-employed contractors. Indeed, James Reed, chairman of a major recruitment company, has warned that some companies are to his knowledge already planning to relocate tens of thousands of employee roles to countries such as India where employment is cheaper.
So, the effect of this extra cost has been immediate even before it kicks in, in April. This is to be expected when politicians eye up business finances that are finely balanced; it is an inexperienced Government who do not understand that. A Government more mindful of business needs, including the welfare of employees and financial realities, would consider measures that encouraged economic growth right across the business world rather than sticking glue-like to the old left-wing style of government which always seems to believe that higher taxes are the solutions to most problems.
Even before the Budget Statement in October, businesses were grappling with inflationary pressures, rising energy costs and wage increases. Now, these higher national insurance contributions on top will simply increase the problem of absorbing the added costs, leading to more job losses and fewer job opportunities. Higher employment costs will certainly disincentivise investment in labour-intensive industries, and businesses operating in globally competitive sectors such as manufacturing or technology may find it harder to remain competitive. That is likely to lead to reduced exports and lower foreign investment in the UK, weakening the country’s position in the global market.
As we have been hearing, there is also considerable concern beyond the business world about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions. Charities and the voluntary sector are in line for the increased national insurance contributions and are already expressing deep concern about their ability to continue their essential work in the community. They struggle hard already to fund all the work that they do. If the all-important donations on which they depend now have to be stretched to fund increased taxes on those they employ—as they will be—they will have to cut back on the services and support that they can deliver to the community.
Many GP practices, which are businesses in their own right, are also facing these higher contributions. They say that they may need to reduce services or limit patient access to meet them. The Government have introduced additional funding to support GP practices, but the specific issue of reimbursing the increased national insurance contributions in full, which GPs are demanding, remains unresolved.
I appreciate that, for the smallest businesses, there is to be an increased employment allowance to offset the increase in their national insurance contributions, which means that some will no longer have to pay contributions at all; this will, of course, be very good news for the approximately 800,000 employers who qualify. However, smaller and medium-sized businesses will still be hit, along with all the bigger, and the biggest, employers.
The rise in national insurance contributions poses a real threat to our economy and to the best interests of our workforce: fewer secure jobs, lower pay, fewer charities with less reach and GP practices under greater pressure. How does this in any way benefit this country or its working people? The answer must be that it does not.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, for the first time. I would suggest that she look back at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, who set out some notable former Conservative Chancellors who raised taxes early in their term of office. I should declare the interests set out in the register where I am a director or trustee of organisations that are in some cases losers and in other cases winners from these changes.
I support the Bill and thank my noble friend the Minister for his cogent introduction of it. I say that I support the Bill, rather than welcome it, because, unlike my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who I am sorry is not speaking today, I am not in favour of increasing taxes unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, it was perfectly clear by the time my right honourable friend the Chancellor came to deliver her first Budget in October that tax rises were needed to restore credibility and stability to the public finances and to fund public services at a sustainable level—even if every department will still need increases beyond the level currently proposed, as soon as economic growth and resulting tax revenues increase.
I will not dwell on the black hole or debate its size, but I will repeat the quotation that I included in my contribution to the Budget debate two months ago, because it is worth repeating. It was the evidence given earlier last year by the chair of the OBR to the Economic Affairs Committee on the forecasts made by the previous Government. He said:
“Some people have referred to that as a work of fiction. That is probably generous, given that someone has bothered to write a work of fiction, whereas the Government have not even bothered to write down their departmental spending plans”.
The Labour Government have had to restore the integrity of the budgeting process and propose plans based on independently compiled and reviewed figures and assumptions. Tax rises were an inevitable consequence of that process, and the increase in employer NI contributions represents the largest part of these. I believe that it is the fairest and most constructive way of raising the necessary revenue, particularly in light of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, that it offsets the reduction in employee national insurance introduced by the last Government.
In election campaigns of the past few decades, an arms race has developed of ruling out specific tax increases over the life of the subsequent Parliament. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, I regret that, but, in the world in which politics is now conducted, I recognise that it is naive to think that that is likely to change.
Had my party not made the commitments that it did, would the Chancellor necessarily have chosen to increase employer NI rather than, as some economists and the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, have argued, reverse the employee NI cuts introduced by the last Government in a desperate and vain attempt to curry favour with the electorate? Perhaps not, but, as I said in the Budget debate, there is a strong case for asking companies to make an increased contribution to the funding of public services on which the resilience of both their customers and employees is dependent.
During the dark days of the pandemic, my noble friend Lord Eatwell and I argued that the corporate sector could afford to pay for increased resilience not only in their own supply chains and operations but in society more widely. Over the past 30 or more years, the share of GDP attributable to corporate profits has significantly increased, which I largely celebrate where it has not been at the expense of labour’s reasonable share. That general increase in profitability gives the corporate sector the ability to contribute to a more resilient society, to say nothing of paying back some part of the furlough and other support provided by the Government during the pandemic.
I regret that many in the business community have been so critical of these measures, suggesting, like Chief Vitalstatistix in Asterix the Gaul, that the sky will fall in tomorrow. It was therefore heartening to read in the Financial Times today that James Daunt—whose turnaround of the bookselling industry here and in the US, in the teeth of Amazon’s ferocious competition, is a retailing case study—said that pay inflation was “really significant” for the business, but that he backed the UK Government’s move to increase national insurance costs. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, with her deep experience of retailing, would agree that this is a significant counter to the complaints of other, perhaps less dynamic, retailers.
As a brief digression, Mr Daunt also said that, in relation to the UK, another factor remains the biggest pain, adds to the cost and complexity and makes our labour situation worse. Would any noble Lords on the Benches opposite like to guess what that other factor is?
Of course, not all employers are profitable, or even for profit, and I recognise that, for those—if they are of a size that means the increase in the employment allowance does not offset the increase in the NI rate and the lowering of the threshold—this measure is harder to absorb than for profitable corporate employers. Other noble Lords, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in her regret amendment, have highlighted the particular impact on health and social care providers. I am glad that there have not been many arguments—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I think was an exception—for exempting different categories of employers from the rise. The tax system is complicated enough without new distortions. However, I hope that the Government and, in the case of charities, donors will be open to targeted financial support where necessary. The grant-making foundation of which I used to be a trustee made an additional tranche of grants two years ago to support charities at the time of the inflationary spike.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, suggested that the left does not understand how tax affects business. I have to say I find that both patronising and wrong. My noble friend Lord Eatwell this afternoon gave a more compelling analysis of how this measure raises necessary revenue while driving productivity improvements, and hence growth, than anything I have heard from the Benches opposite.
I end by strongly endorsing the advocacy by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, of a more fundamental review of the relationship between national insurance and income tax. In so doing, I join the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in the belief that the pretence of NI being anything other than a tax while quacking like a tax is long overdue for dissolution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, demonstrated so well, the path to radical reform is long and rocky, with the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, bearing the scars of trying and failing to enact even quite a modest change. But it is hard to reconcile with fairness the partners of a Magic Circle law firm, earning on average £2 million a year, not only paying a lower rate of self-employed national insurance than employees would but, as partnerships, not being subject to any employer’s NI, saving £300,000 a year for every partner. That is neither fair nor a loss of revenue—hundreds of millions a year from that sector alone—that the country can afford. Will the Minister consider urgently establishing a task force to examine how income tax and national insurance can be integrated and all types of workers, employed and self-employed, equitably taxed?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, the UK remains the sixth-largest economy in the world if you look at crude gross domestic product. Sadly, the bad news is that it has slipped down the league of nations in gross domestic product per head. We are now either 21st or 28th in GDP per head, depending on how you calculate it. Taiwan and South Korea—despite its present problems—are ahead of us while, on present forecasts, we think Poland will possibly take over in about two years’ time. That is because the annual average increase in GDP per head has fallen over the decades, from about 2.5% in the 1980s to about 1.3% a year in the 2010s, to even less, 0.3%, in the 2020s.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, who has just left the Chamber, said in a speech in the Autumn Statement debate, the UK’s GDP is now lower than that of any of the 50 states of the United States. It is even lower than that of the poorest US state, Mississippi. It actually gets worse than that, because I think the noble Baroness was taking the average UK GDP per head. Unfortunately, there is a huge discrepancy between GDP per head in London and GDP per head outside. In fact, as you go outside London, GDP per head goes down by about 50% to about half what it is in London, and in the poorest regions of the UK, which are in the north-east of England and Wales, it is about one-third of what we enjoy here. So, although we in London enjoy a standard of living that is similar to many of our compatriots in Europe, in Paris, Munich and so forth, outside London and the Home Counties, the situation has become progressively more dire, and I do fear for the politics of this country while that situation continues.
Does the Autumn Statement, along with the national insurance increase that we are debating today, make any difference to that fundamental fact? The fact is that it does not—or at least not much. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is always interesting, and I was very interested in his heroic defence of the Government’s measures. In particular, he made the reasonable point that, if the cost of labour goes up, it may be used more productively in the private sector. But surely the real issue here is the profligate use of labour in the public sector. That is where real efficiencies could be achieved. In the National Health Service, for example, more people are employed than ever but productivity has gone down. We are now in a situation where, in one particular public agency, the unions are threatening to go on strike because they have been asked to work three days a week in the office rather than at home. It is astonishing that the private sector should stand accused when it is the public sector that is the real problem. So I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I feel that he is aiming at the wrong target.
I agree with the Minister’s point that there is a sensible defence of the Government’s position, as the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, has just explained and the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, referred to, given that we are looking at a situation where there is a hole in the public finances, of whatever size—we can disagree about how big it is, but there is a hole—and there are clearly some short-term problems which were unanticipated, for example the £11 billion or so that has to be spent to compensate the victims of the infected blood inquiry, and we have run down our defence stocks and our armaments to help Ukraine. All these are factors that any Government would have to consider. It is perfectly true that Conservative Governments in the past increased taxation at the beginning of their periods of government—Mrs Thatcher did it, and it was done by George Osborne as well—to cope with factors of that kind. So there is a reasonable defence there.
The problem, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, is the clumsy way that this has been done. Was it necessary to antagonise farmers quite so much that they came here with all their tractors and so forth to protest about what happened? Was it necessary to further disadvantage the private education sector? Was it necessary to hit the charities? Was it further necessary to disregard poorer pensioners in a difficult winter, with all the problems they will be facing?
That is surely the reason why the measures, including this one, are so unpopular and why business is so upset. Demonstrably, business is upset, and as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe also said, morale matters. If you talk people down and constantly go on about the difficulties, you will destroy morale. The Government now have the task of improving morale when they need not have been in this position.
There is a bit of a problem, which all Governments face, in how the Treasury is set up to deal with difficult situations such as this. The first part of the problem is that it combines being a finance ministry and being an economic ministry. To go back to Harold Wilson’s days, older Members will remember when he tried to untie this Gordian knot by creating the Department of Economic Affairs, so that growth was given the same emphasis that balancing the budget had. Sadly, that lasted for only four or five years. There have been various attempts since then to deal with this problem—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made one—but it remains a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, may have much more understanding of this than I do, but I think the only way forward is to emphasise the growth unit inside the Treasury rather than establish another organisation, which the Treasury will inevitably try to fight. We have to face that problem, and I am afraid that the Office for Budget Responsibility actually makes the problem worse, because it emphasises the budget-balancing side of the Treasury’s task rather than its growth side.
There is a second point, which was recently brought out in an interesting book by Professor Paul Collier, who is professor of economics and public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government in Oxford. He made the point in his book, Left Behind: A New Economics for Neglected Places, that the people in the Treasury, given the way that it is staffed and the tasks they are given, are drawn from a very narrow circle. I certainly do not intend to make any criticism of individuals here, but they are very often people from a London background who have been to Oxford and Cambridge. How can they therefore be expected to understand the effect on farming, for example, of the national insurance increase? How can they be expected to understand the effect on charities or small businesses, when they have never run a small business? They are tasked with a narrow remit and their expertise is of a particular kind. They do a heroic job, but how can they reasonably take account of all these factors?
They are mostly economists, like me. I am an economist by background, and I think it was Angus Deaton, the Nobel Prize winner, who said that the teaching of economics has lost touch with welfare recently; it has been too keen to pursue methodological purity at the expense of social, business and other factors. That is a problem as well. We therefore need to look at this rather structural problem, as well as at the politics of decisions that particular politicians may make.
Having said all that, like the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, I am not unoptimistic about this country’s future. For example, we have a great services sector, hardly referred to today: 80% of our GDP comes from the service sector and that sector is expanding by 8% a year universally—throughout the whole world—so there are huge opportunities. I declare an interest here. Many years ago, I started an economics consultancy specialising in metals and minerals. Frankly, the sky is the limit for what you can do if you have the right product and the right marketing. The world is literally the UK’s oyster if we get this right, and we should concentrate on it.
I liken the UK economy at the moment to the football club that I support, Manchester United. It has a glorious history but has recently been sliding down the league tables because of complacency, bad mistakes, bad recruitment and generally not doing very well. But suddenly, yesterday, the players put their back into it: they had a clear plan and worked with real aggression and intent, and they got a result. This is something which we can hope that the Government will do: turn round the British economy, in the way that the players turned round Manchester United’s fortunes yesterday. I am afraid that the Government will have to show a better understanding of the private sector than they have done so far if they are to achieve that admirable result.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, as declared in the register of interests, I work for Marsh Ltd, a subsidiary of MMC Inc, which also owns Mercer, a global consulting firm that offers solutions for investments, retirement, health and benefits. That sounds a bit like an ad but it is important in this case.
The proposed changes to employers’ national insurance contributions represent not just a fiscal adjustment but a direct and tangible tax on the future economic growth of the United Kingdom. Why? First, we must consider the immediate impact on UK businesses, which are already navigating a minefield of challenges. Rising operational costs, muted consumer spending and the lingering effects of recent economic shocks have left many companies struggling to grow. Imposing an additional financial burden in the form of increased national insurance contributions is akin to asking a runner, already fatigued, to carry an additional weight uphill. It is not just ill-timed; it is counterproductive.
In the context of global markets, the implications are even more concerning. The rise in national insurance will make the UK less competitive on the world stage. Again, why? It is because each new recruit will now come with a higher cost to businesses. For multinational corporations deciding where to expand or establish a new branch or headquarters, or for fast-growing start-ups seeking an environment conducive to scaling up, the UK is no longer the obvious choice. Instead, it will be perceived as more expensive, less attractive and a riskier proposition for those with ambitious growth plans. This is not the signal that we should be sending to the world.
Moving on to the hard-working people of this country, the financial burden imposed on businesses does not exist in isolation. Businesses facing these costs have limited options to maintain profitability. They may choose to freeze or reduce pay rises, adjust prices for goods and services, or cut back on benefits and pension contributions. There is an assumption that businesses can just cut fat from their operations, but no, as it is often now not there to cut. In every scenario, it is the workers and consumers who will bear the brunt of this decision.
Already, the data is telling. Around one-fifth of business leaders questioned in spot polls by Mercer have indicated that they intend to reduce their budgets for salary increases as a direct result of these changes. Another 17% are in a holding pattern, unable to make definitive plans for pay adjustments. Perhaps more concerning is the finding that a fifth of businesses are shelving hiring plans altogether. These are not abstract numbers. I would add, as did my noble friend Lady Noakes, that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, by 2026-27, some 76% of the total cost of national insurance contributions will be passed on through a squeeze on workers’ pay rises and increased prices.
This punitive tax, which affects all businesses, is having a disproportionate impact on sectors that employ large numbers of lower-paid workers, such as the retail, care, non-profit and hospitality sectors, to name but a few, since the threshold drop-down affects a more significant proportion of pay. The hospitality industry—one of the cornerstones of our economy and culture—is a prime example. UKHospitality has warned that a third of businesses in the sector are already operating at or below breakeven. The additional burden of the increased national insurance contributions could push many over the edge. It is not just about numbers on a balance sheet; it is about the vibrancy of our communities, the livelihoods of countless workers, and the health of an industry that has already endured so much.
Survey data from the Confederation of British Industry, representing 170,000 businesses, paints an even grimmer picture. Nearly two-thirds of firms anticipate that the hike in national insurance will negatively impact their investment plans, and half have indicated that they may need to reduce headcount as a result. Meanwhile, confidence among members of the Institute of Directors has plummeted to near record lows, echoing the sentiment of businesses at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. The IoD has stated:
“Far from fixing the foundations, the Budget has undermined them, damaging the private sector’s ability to invest in their businesses and their workforces”.
The long-term consequences will be important. From listening to the voices of business, I note that these changes will come with significant opportunity costs. Reduced hiring and investment will not just slow growth but create a cycle of stagnation: less hiring means fewer opportunities for workers, which in turn reduces consumer spending and diminishes economic activity. No business is immune. This is not a path to prosperity but a recipe for regression.
The knock-on effects extend beyond the private sector. A sluggish economy means reduced tax revenues for the Treasury, leaving the Government with fewer resources to invest in vital public services. The irony is glaring: a policy ostensibly designed to generate revenue for public goods—the NHS, social care and so on—could ultimately undermine their funding. At a time when these services are needed more than ever, we cannot afford such a misstep.
We cannot will economic growth into existence through further taxation and burdens on businesses. Growth requires investment, innovation and a competitive environment that attracts talent and capital. The UK must be a place where businesses feel confident to expand, hire and innovate. This requires policies that incentivise growth, not stifle it.
The proposed changes to national insurance contributions represent a tax on workers, on growth and, ultimately, on the Government themselves. This policy must be rethought to prioritise measures that enable businesses to thrive. Competitive tax incentives, streamlined regulations and targeted support for key industries are just some of the ways that can foster an environment conducive to growth.
This is about not just economic metrics or fiscal policy but the kind of country that we want to be. Do we want to be a nation that penalises ambition and stifles potential, or do we want to be a beacon of opportunity, attracting the best and brightest, and empowering our businesses and workers to succeed? The answer, I believe, is clear: growth and opportunity must be chosen, with policies that support, rather than hinder, the aspirations of our people and businesses. The Government need to ensure that the UK remains a competitive, dynamic and prosperous nation. Let us reject the false economy of punitive taxation and embrace a future built on investment, innovation and shared prosperity.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this feels very much like a knee-jerk Treasury groupthink policy, because the October 2024 Budget had the biggest tax increase we have seen for many years. It is a levy or tax and, as noble Lords have previously said, you generally tax things that you do not like. In this case, it is a disproportionate tax on jobs.
I have to let your Lordships’ House into a little secret. I am young enough to have read the A-level textbooks written by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—I am sorry if that gives away his age. Much as I agreed with a lot of what he said, I have to disagree with him about the unique propensity of the previous Conservative Government, of whom I have occasionally been critical myself, for creating public sector debt. Between 2007 and 2010, public sector net debt as a proportion of GDP, under a Labour Government, increased from 36% of GDP to 65%—unprecedented numbers. So, much as I agree with him on some issues, such as the disproportionate concentration on low-skilled immigration to drive growth, he was wrong on that particular issue.
A truly courageous Government with a strong and confident mandate would have responded to the challenges put by the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Macpherson—who is not in his place—on policies to drive growth. But they also would have looked at raising money for some big policy issues, such as the policy on social care, which we will now not see till 2029, or policies on the planning system, on our dysfunctional housing and mortgage market, on our universities’ funding model, on reducing immigration and our dependence on low-skilled foreign workers, and on our worklessness crisis. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said, 9 million people who could work are on benefits or are not able to work.
Those are the choices that the Government could have made. They could have made them via some really courageous fiscal decisions, which they have not made—on, for instance, the triple lock or changes in fuel duty, which they have shied away from; moving to a project-based approach to overseas aid; and, of course, my favourite one: tackling public sector pensions, which this Government will never do, for obvious reasons. This proposal is what Labour Governments always do. When they come to power, they clobber the wealth creators, the innovators, the entrepreneurs and the investors, while taking care of their trade union friends. It happened in the 1970s and it is happening again today. We thought we had had a break from that with the Blair Government, but we are now back to the bad old days.
This proposal is also an egregious breach of a manifesto commitment. My noble friend Lady Noakes did not dwell on this, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark did. It has broken a solemn promise—a binding contract with the electorate before a general election. In May, the now Chancellor said that Labour would not increase income tax, national insurance or VAT, and would not raise either income tax or national insurance for
“the duration of the next parliament”—
namely, the Parliament we are now in.
The distinction between working people and employers is tautology and disingenuous. It most assuredly is not a measure that will give rise to economic growth in any meaningful sense. It also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact of fiscal policy. In its pre-Budget paper on 28 October 2024, the Institute of Economic Affairs stated correctly that
“the incidence of a tax doesn’t always fall on the person who pays it. When we tax businesses, it is often workers who end up bearing the burden in the form of lower wages”.
Secondly, tax affects behaviour, and the choices people make in response to a tax increase or a tax cut can have a significant impact on how much revenue is raised. I do not think that His Majesty’s Treasury has really considered the impact on, for instance, concealed employment and forced self-employment that might arise from behavioural changes that this tax gives rise to.
Even the OBR assumes that just over two-thirds of additional business costs will be passed directly to working people, giving us higher prices, lower wages, the decision to hire fewer people and, therefore, an impact on real wages. Already, the S&P Global Purchasing Managers’ Index composite employment index shows a drop in new jobs being advertised. This policy has undermined consumer, business and investor confidence. The policy will be introduced in April against a backdrop of lower growth, rising wage/price inflation, increased debt and the potential that, within the next two or three years, tax as a proportion of GDP will hit an all-time high of 38%.
These changes are, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, also regressive, even allowing for an increase in the national living wage. They will disadvantage almost 1 million businesses, and the figure of £25.7 billion by 2030 is illusory due to the offsets and allowances the Government have been compelled to offer. This raises perhaps £16 billion by the end of the Parliament.
Research by the Centre for Policy Studies, in its report Punching Down, published just last week on 3 January, shows that the huge tax hike for businesses will disproportionately hit those employing lower-wage employees, especially in areas such as leisure, hospitality and social care. There will be a 60% tax increase for those employing people on the lowest wages in 2024, adding £1,617 per capita in NICs for those full-time equivalents on minimum wage. A full one-fifth of employment costs will now be taken up with tax liabilities from April this year. Tesco alone will be paying £1 billion extra, and across ASDA, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons there will be an extra £1.3 billion in tax liabilities. As we heard earlier, the British Retail Consortium estimates a total cumulative cost of £7 billion across the economy.
That will have an inevitable impact on income and wealth inequality, and especially on young people. We have heard the British Chambers of Commerce say just today that 55% of companies are now planning to increase prices in the coming three months, up from 39% in the third quarter. Many are very concerned about the national insurance changes. Shevaun Haviland, director-general of the BCC, said:
“Businesses confidence has slumped in a pressure cooker of rising costs and taxes”,
and
“Firms of all shapes and sizes are telling us the national insurance hike is particularly damaging”.
David Bharier, head of research at the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
“Faced with rising costs, our survey paints a difficult picture and shows businesses are having to make some very difficult decisions”.
Because of His Majesty’s Government’s incompetence, lack of planning and ill-thought-out policy, this gives rise to a number of perverse consequences. We read last week that His Majesty’s Treasury is scrabbling around to cut sweetheart deals with public sector contractors and providers who are intending to pass on the costs to the customer—in other words, the taxpayer. They are seeking variations in their contracts to cover “legislative increases”. Either way, this represents price gouging at the expense of largely private sector-employed taxpayers. Perhaps the Minister will specifically update us on these negotiations.
We still do not have a comprehensive picture of the extent of the amelioration and offset funding available, and to which bespoke public sector organisations it applies. Whether it is £4.7 billion or £5.1 billion estimated by the end of this Parliament, it still means higher public expenditure without meaningful reform, higher inflation and an indirect tax hike for private sector employers and employees. Will the Minister also update the House on this issue?
In the last minute or so of my remarks, I will focus on two important healthcare areas impacted by the changes, which other noble Lords have already mentioned and to which I think the Government have given too little thought. GP surgeries are independently owned private sector entities delivering public healthcare services. The NHS Confederation and even the BMA have raised significant concerns about the changes that will result in a forced choice between reducing staff and increasing patient numbers. Both will have an impact on the quality of service delivery in primary care. Does the Minister have an update on the response to these concerns by His Majesty’s Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care?
In addition, the charity sector, as we have seen, faces existential challenges and threats to its funding model and operational effectiveness as a result of these tax changes. Mencap, which specialises in delivering services for people with learning difficulties, is having to find an extra £18 million a year in the light of the national living wage, increases in NICs and the contingent pay rises for those who are already paid by them.
The final issue is community pharmacies. The national living wage, NICs and business rates mean that they have to find an extra £200 million a year in mitigation as a result of this policy, despite the fact that 90% of their work is dispensing NHS medicines and delivering NHS services. What we see is essentially a crisis in the community pharmacy sector.
In conclusion, these tax changes and the increase in job taxes are inimical to the Government’s professed aim of GDP growth. They will damage businesses and investment and destroy job opportunities, especially for low-paid working people, and are unfair and regressive. The Government must not only think again but be clear on how they help to offset these increases, and who they help in doing so. For this reason, I support the spirit of the Liberal Democrat amendment and urge the Government to bring forward an amended scheme as soon as practicable to tackle the impact of this deeply flawed, damaging, job-killing Bill, which will do nothing for jobs, growth and prosperity.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by joining other noble Lords in offering the Green group’s tribute to the enormous contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and express our sorrow at her death.
We are debating a measure—the increase in secondary class 1 national insurance contributions—that was announced on 30 October. It feels like quite a long time ago in politics, but the timing is apt—if perhaps not intentionally so on the part of the Government—given that this is what the High Pay Centre calls “fat cat Monday”: the day on which the chief executives of the FTSE 100 companies will have made more money by 11.30 am than their average worker does in a whole year. The median pay for FTSE 100 chief executives is £4.22 million, or 113 times the median full-time worker’s pay of £37,430. After 29 hours, that is an equal amount of pay. If we compare that to last year, CEOs had to work a whole further 90 minutes to get to that figure. It is getting worse; it is heading in the wrong direction in terms of inequality.
The Minister used the term “working people” eight times in his fairly short introduction. What are the Government going to do to rebalance the rewards for working people—from the cleaner to the CEO? If the Government are looking for ideas, I am happy to proffer the Green Party policy that the top-paid person in an organisation should not be paid more than 10 times the lowest-paid person. We could perhaps start by making that a requirement for bidding for government contracts. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.
This has been a perhaps surprisingly lively debate. To be noted in particular are the wise comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, not currently in his place, about parties making promises during election campaigns, particularly promises not to do things as a knee-jerk reaction when they come under rhetorical attack. The country is in an awful state—the state left by the former Government—with eviscerated public services, rampant poverty and inequality, as fat cat Monday illustrates, and terrible public and environmental health.
The country had a hope and expectation that the new Government would come in with a plan and a worked-out vision for what to do. Instead, we have this national insurance employer contribution increase, which is a large plaster—and for many crucial services, such as health and social care, a toxic plaster—on the obviously awful state of the national finances. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the importance of national morale, which is of course suffering from the rampant unfairness and desperation wrought by the two-child benefit cap and the cuts to the pensioner winter fuel payment. The depressing of the mood is coming from many directions.
On a specific point, I declare my position as vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. At present, as I understand it, parish and town councils are not included in the Government’s public sector compensation scheme. It is now calculated that the cost of compensation for them would be just £10 million a year in England. Conversely, the absence of compensation could risk council tax rises of 1.5% to 3% for parish and town residents. Is that something that the Government are going to pick up?
My honourable friends in the other place were part of a reasoned amendment that this Bill not be given a Second Reading because the Office for Budget Responsibility has found that the increase in NI contributions will lead to stalled real wage growth and higher prices for workers and incur additional costs for the public and third sectors, and noting that the Government did not choose to pursue more progressive forms of taxation, such as full equalisation of capital gains tax with income tax rates and by introducing a wealth tax to raise revenue. The Minister suggested that anyone complaining about this Bill should suggest alternatives. I point him to the wealth tax proposed by the Green Party in last year’s election campaign, which is gathering further support around the country all the time, and to that equalisation of capital gains tax. Fat cats, by definition, have broad shoulders.
I come now to the question of what this Chamber should do. In the other place, Greens joined Liberal Democrats in backing amendments to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the Bill, but I see no point in repeating that exercise here. I wonder what the Benches to my right would have said a year ago had Labour tried the same tactic that they are apparently planning on what is not quite a money Bill. The Green group will support the regret amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, tonight, while regretting that the Government have got themselves into this mess by making narrow electoral calculations in last year’s election campaign.
We need courage and vision in our politics, and we need to offer hope of addressing poverty and inequality, rampant ill health and environmental damage. As Greens, we know, as we have heard from many sides of the House today, that what are all too often hollow promises of growth do nothing to address the question of who benefits from that growth and what damage is done as a result. The Minister spoke about the increased size of the economy, but the pie cannot keep getting bigger. You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet, and you cannot rely on those now getting crumbs from the fat cats’ table getting a few more crumbs. We have to slice up the pie more fairly.
While the Treasury is used to thinking that it is fiscal levers that it has to pull and fiscal measures that it has to adjust, it will have to come to terms with the reality that the physical limits of our planet and the rapidly changing climate, which is having significant impacts on food security and supply right across our supply chains, as well as the disasters of fire, flood, drought and heat, are not responsive to any economic theories, particularly not outdated and failed economic theories that are deployed again and again to get the same result.
I spent my holidays reading, among others, the ecological anthropologist Alf Hornborg, who notes:
“Among the … obvious shortcomings of the current world order is its inclination to generate abysmal inequalities and ecologically disastrous patterns of consumption and resource use, and yet our mainstream discourse tends to represent these conditions merely as the deplorable but unavoidable side effects of progress”.
Yet the disasters are catching up with us, and this Bill and most actions of the Government are not acting to address the “abysmal inequalities”. Indeed, they risk increasing them, and are going to increase them.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. I am an employer. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for his patience and stamina at these debates on tax matters—and I think that there will be many more.
I am fearful that the Government are heading us down what I would call the Corinth Canal conundrum. One might wonder how I can bring that marvellous wonder of the world and national insurance into a debate. In the early 1990s, I had the great pleasure of taking a small pleasure craft through the Corinth Canal—just 3.9 miles long. I was rather surprised when I got to the other end to find that it was £92 for a boat that was about 30 feet long. I asked the lock keeper at the other end how on earth it could be £92 for such a small pleasure craft, and he said, “Ah, because nobody is using this Corinth Canal very much these days, we keep putting the price up—and, funnily enough, fewer and fewer people use it, so we then put the price up again”. I fear that this is exactly what this Labour Government will be doing over the years ahead. They have had a very large Budget proposal of £40 billion, but it will not be enough, because in so doing they have shattered and damaged the economy. We have seen that in figures in terms of growth—or, should I say, the start of recession—and there is more of that ahead.
Manifestos matter. Why do they matter? They matter because at election time they are the bond that an incoming Government try to form with the electorate. There used to be an old saying that words are my bond. That seems to be long gone. I am sure that the Labour manifesto has been quoted this afternoon. It said:
“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT”.
That sounds quite clear to me, and I am sure that the electorate were fairly clear that tax proposals would not affect them. For this Government to be wordsmithing now, at best, and saying, “Employers’ national insurance does not count—that is something rather different”, does not convince me. But you do not need to try to convince me—you need to try to convince the electorate that something else is being proposed. I suppose that we should not be at all surprised, when we heard the then shadow Secretary of State for Defra saying that there were no proposals for changing agricultural property relief—and here we are, to the dismay of the farming community and, under BPR changes, to the dismay of the business community.
What this has shown, more than anything else, is that this Cabinet has never run a business before. It thinks that tax simply comes out of thin air, nobody is affected and we can take £40 billion out of the economy with no problem at all. I shall give an example of what this measure will really mean to, say, the mythical shopkeeper, who perhaps earns just shy of £40,000 per year. That shopkeeper has an expectation to earn that type of money. This Government are going to hit them in two ways—on the employees that they have, particularly the lowest paid of their employees, starting at £5,000, where an increased tax will be suffered. Beyond that, their business rate relief will be reduced.
So what will the earnings of that shopkeeper go down to in the face of these two taxes? Will it be to £30,000, or perhaps even less? They have a choice—they can get rid of an employee, perhaps, so we will see a rise in unemployment. They can perhaps think, “Well, that pay rise I was thinking about for the year ahead, I just can’t afford to do that any more”. What is the next thing that that shopkeeper or small business owner may do? They will reach for putting prices up. So, uniquely, this measure will depress wages while increasing inflation. Very few measures that you can come up with are that bad, yet this Government have managed to do so.
National insurance has a long history. It goes back to 1911. In those days, it was considered to be a properly hypothecated type of levy on employment: a levy so that, if you were made unemployed, you had some sort of support. I suppose that, as the NHS was created, after the war, there was also an expectation that your national insurance was somehow a proper insurance that paid for such things. I have to say that that old hypothecation has long gone. The only two remnants I can think of that exist now are the added years towards your state pension—you need 35 years of NI record to receive a full state pension and you have to have 10 years, as a minimum, to get any at all. The benefits, I suppose, would be paternity and maternity benefits, which are still framed within a work environment that your NICs have paid for. Beyond that, it has become just A N Other tax, just part of the tax pool. To call it anything else is, I think, disingenuous.
Something a little similar came to us when I was at the other end of this Palace. In 2021, under Boris Johnson’s Administration, there was the health and care levy. Proposed as a national insurance measure, it was actually rather more widespread in its effects, in some ways, than this, because it would have hit class 4 national insurance for the self-employed, proper employees’ national insurance and employers’ national insurance. It was an all-encompassing national insurance rise. To that Administration’s credit, they were at least looking at how to solve the social care problem. This new Government, having had 14 years on the opposition Benches to think about such things, have simply batted this off until 2028 or 2029 with yet another consultation. We seem to be having a consultation most weeks of this Administration so far.
There was a big discussion in the other House at the time, which I took part in, in opposition to the national insurance rise, and that was for a few reasons. The first was that it was not in our manifesto. To me, the commitment that we made to our electorate, that I made to my electorate then in South Thanet, was an important one. It was not in the manifesto, so I was minded not to support it. I understand that things change, and things changed rapidly during and after the Covid period. I get that, but this was not in the manifesto.
Generally, I feel that we should tax things that are bad, and we do a lot of that in this country. We tend to tax alcohol and tobacco—excessively, some might say—because we are trying to reduce their consumption. That is what taxes generally do: they make us do less of those things because, frankly, we have not got enough money in our pocket to spend on them. We all generally accept that taxing alcohol and tobacco, perhaps excessively, is a good thing. But should we then think that jobs are similarly bad? That went through my mind in the other place: I would not support this because I was not prepared to accept an additional tax on good things, and jobs and employment are good things.
I served on the Public Accounts Committee for two years. We had the full muscle of the National Audit Office at our fingertips and there was an independent OBR. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, that I find it all a little bit last year, all a bit 2024, to be re-raising the fiscal black hole of £22 billion. I know very few countries around this planet that have such a transparent Government, with an independent OBR, a fully fledged Public Accounts Committee that is chaired by the Opposition and the full ambit of a very big institution, the National Audit Office, at their fingertips, publishing reports regularly for all to see.
One of the discussions we regularly had, with HMRC in the room, was about the tax gap. The tax gap is very interesting and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, is well aware of it. The last HMRC report stated that the tax gap was now £36.7 billion. It is in the realms, strangely enough, of what the Budget was trying to raise, and certainly higher than these NIC proposals. I will give the House the following example, which we see on every high street in this country. Among the businesses we all face, there has been a massive proliferation of barber shops and we are all familiar with hand car washes. Most of us in this place take our car to them from time to time. We have restaurants and takeaways—any number of cash businesses. There are four potential frauds going on in those cash businesses. First, the cash is not rung up: no VAT. Secondly, that cash, not rung up, does not form the trading profits for income tax or corporation tax. Thirdly, that cash is possibly used to make up the salaries, in cash, of various employees, so there are no PAYE deductions and no employers’ or employees’ national insurance. I can but imagine what increasing that rate still further is going to do to those types of businesses, which may be tempted to do such things.
The fourth fraud is of course the depressed wages that are recorded, if they are recorded at all, on monthly returns to HMRC by the employer and will then be the basis on which universal credit or tax credits are paid out to those seemingly low-paid employees. So, there are lots of places we can look for the tax gap.
My worry, which was raised by noble friend Lord Jackson, is that the status of employees is a very grey area. We have full employment and self-employment and we now have the rather widening gig economy. HMRC does not always get it right. It loses plenty of status cases in the courts. There are status tools available for employers to use, but every employment is slightly different. My worry is that tax-compliant big organisations will be tempted to say to their service providers, “Ah, let us consider you to be self-employed, because we are in a grey area”. So, instead of 15% employers’ national insurance deducted and handed over to HMRC, there will be none. Given the extent of the tax gap and my experience on the Public Accounts Committee, HMRC does not have the resources to look into every nook and cranny.
So that is my main concern: we have a tax code that is becoming more complex and rates that are becoming excessive, and that will mean that behaviour will go against tax collection. But then, this Cabinet has never run a business, so I am not surprised that it has reached for this, the worst of the tax levers.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, it is an interesting optic that I am following the contributions of 15 noble Lords from the Conservative Benches and, curiously, just three from the Government Benches. I am not sure how we should interpret that but, as an objective Cross-Bencher, I could not possibly comment.
Two months ago, many of us here today took part in the debate on the October Budget, and many of us warned of the consequences for a stuttering economy. Two months on and I am afraid that those concerns are growing, from employers, business owners, entrepreneurs and investors—in fact, from those who drive 70% of our nation’s GDP. That is what I will focus on today, and in so doing I declare my interests as an investor in SMEs, as set out in the register.
Momentum is critical for sustained economic growth. We did not have much of it in the first half of last year, but what little we had appears to have evaporated. As we have heard, GDP flatlined in Q3; worse still, GDP per capita fell by 0.2%. Q4 has brought a string of disturbing indicators, raising the prospect of a second consecutive quarter of zero, or even negative, growth.
As we have heard, the British Chambers of Commerce reports that business sentiment among its members has fallen to its lowest level for two years. The number of job vacancies in November fell at the fastest rate since the start of the pandemic and the spread between UK and German 10-year bonds has now eclipsed the peak triggered by Liz Truss’s mini-Budget two years ago. The spectre of stagflation is spooking the markets, meaning that interest rates may well remain higher than expected for much of 2025.
That is the macro. I turn to the micro, in particular the impact on our SMEs. I find it extraordinary that the Government devised an NIC regime that hits the vast majority of SMEs, which employ between five and 250 staff, particularly by dropping the threshold from £9,000 to £5,000. As we have heard, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, it is indiscriminate, falling as it does on all sorts of undeserving organisations, including charities, hospices, care homes and GP practices. Taking together the impact of NICs and the 6.7% increase in the minimum wage, will the Minister explain how raising the cost of employment by an average of £2,390 per employee this April is consistent with boosting economic growth?
For start-ups and our all-important scale-ups, it is a punitive tax on job creation and much-needed risk taking. While I accept the argument made by my noble friend Lord Macpherson and others that tax revenues had to be increased, there were plenty of fiscal alternatives that would have caused less damage to our economy—for instance, reversing the pre-election 2% cut in employees’ NICs brought in by Jeremy Hunt, indexing fuel duty, raising VAT selectively, and, last but not least, making modest adjustments to the bands and higher rates of income tax. But the Government could not do any of that, for they had tied themselves into knots with the tax pledges in their manifesto. Once again, politics trumps economics.
I was an entrepreneur for 30 years and in the last 10 years I have backed, chaired and advised a wide range of start-ups and scale-ups. I will finish by sharing how they are reacting to the increase in NI contributions. This comes from business owners, investors and management teams working at the coalface. In summary, some say they will reduce pay increases and bonuses; some will also reduce working hours, particularly for part-time staff in hard-hit sectors such as hospitality and retail; and some will slow the rate of job creation. Those that can will pass on the increased costs of employment to consumers and their clients, as their suppliers are already doing to them. Finally, and perhaps most worryingly for productivity, investment in new projects will be reduced or delayed in many cases. This is bad news for the worker and the employer, bad news for growth and inflation, and very bad news for our future competitiveness.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, who has made a most interesting and thought-provoking speech. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, which, in common with other charities, is adversely affected by this Bill.
I thank the Minister for providing this opportunity to debate the centrepiece of the Government’s first Budget: the unexpected large increase in national insurance contributions. Whether the maintenance of NI contributions as a separate tax is logical or not is a separate question. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said so eloquently and with what the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said on this subject.
If we have a separate national insurance tax paid by employers and employees, the balance between employers’ and employees’ contributions should appear reasonable in the light of what the tax is theoretically supposed to do. I submit that the Bill before your Lordships today fundamentally alters that balance. It is bound to lead to employers telling their staff—in particular their part-time staff—that their pay rises will be less than they would have been because employers’ contributions have increased so disproportionately. Even if rigidity in the labour market means that employers may not pass on all the additional costs in the first year to their employees, the OBR forecasts that workers will bear 60% of the costs of the increased contributions initially, rising to 76% in later years.
The Government claim that the increase in the employment allowance and the removal of the £100,000 threshold will substantially mitigate much of the increased burden on small companies. However, the Treasury forecasts that the increased contributions will yield £23.18 billion in 2025-26, before any behavioural changes. Can the Minister tell the House what the yield would have been if there had been no increase in the employment allowance? This would help your Lordships understand what proportion of affected workers benefit from the increase. To be precise, can he tell us what proportion of employers benefit compared to those that do not, and what proportion of employees are employed by employers that benefit compared with total employees?
The other principal effect of the changes, as predicted by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay in his excellent speech, is that employers will seek to secure the services of workers by contracting them on a self-employed basis rather than as employees. The Bill will further increase the differential in the burden of tax and national insurance between those in employment and those engaged as self-employed. The consequence is likely to be an increase in false self-employment. Does the Minister agree that, if the Government’s policy leads in that direction, it would be most unfortunate and, paradoxically, have the reverse effect on the rights of the affected workers from that which the Government otherwise seek to achieve? I am not arguing in favour of their approach to employees’ rights, only saying that under existing law employees have rights which self-employed workers do not.
It is relevant that the public sector is largely unaffected by this Bill, since public sector workers are exempt. It represents yet another huge transfer from the private sector to the public sector. The private sector will therefore have to work all the harder to generate the growth that the economy as a whole so badly needs.
The increase in employers’ NI contributions will hit small businesses in the hospitality and farming sectors hard. Farming businesses are having to sustain a double whammy anyway, as a result of the accelerated withdrawal of the direct payment scheme and the new restrictions on APR and BPR. Many small businesses in the farming and hospitality sectors do not benefit from the increase in the employment allowance. It is also relevant that they employ many part-time workers, for whom the employers’ NI contributions are increased quite disproportionately.
I ask the Minister, please, not to continue to argue that the large increase in employer NI contributions is not a breach of the Government’s manifesto commitment. It was specifically promised over and over again that there would be no increase in national insurance. It is disingenuous to suggest that a reasonable person would consider that the promise covered only the employee’s part of national insurance contributions; a reasonable person would not think that.
The OBR, the IFS, the Resolution Foundation and many others all say this is a tax on working people. Andrew Lewin said at Second Reading in another place that the Labour Party had chosen national insurance to fund the rescue that the public services need. The public spending audit, conducted by the Treasury after the general election, found that the higher level adopted for public sector pay awards accounted for an additional £9.4 billion over the amount the previous Government had set aside for this.
The Government are still talking about a so-called black hole of £21.9 billion, but the OBR’s review explains it very differently. After the £9.4 billion of unbudgeted pay increases, the next biggest component is normal reserve claims, amounting to £8.6 billion. The OBR’s review draws attention to its limited resources, which affect its interaction with the Treasury, and suggests that the degree to which the Treasury shares information with the OBR will need to change. Was it not inevitable when the OBR was set up that we would be led down this path? This will lead to a further slippage of powers from the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers to a burgeoning OBR. I wonder whether the Chancellor will not rue the day the Government introduced the Budget Responsibility Act.
The OBR had pencilled in growth of 2% for 2025-26, but recent economic forecasts point to the likelihood of some sort of recession. The economy is now suffering from the effects of the tax changes—for which businesses are already preparing—and the effect on inward investment of the coming changes in workers’ rights. The Bill before your Lordships today has already led firms to reduce plans to expand their staff and postpone new investment projects.
When the Government came to power, they promised they would be very supportive of business and that the country would enjoy the fastest rate of growth among the G7 countries. How much has changed in such a short time. We have not heard much in recent weeks about the promise made by the Chancellor that the tax rises in the Budget would be the last ones. Does that commitment still hold, or have the Government resiled from that commitment as well as others?
The high public sector pay awards have helped fuel a new boost to inflation, which has led to higher interest and mortgage rates for longer than we all hoped. As many noble Lords have said, the Government’s Budget is already damaging growth. The Minister has been asked many questions, and I am looking forward to his answers.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests: as chairman of Team Domenica, a charity that looks after adults with learning disabilities; as a patron of the Acorns Children’s Hospice; and as a non-executive director of the Watches of Switzerland Group, a FTSE 250 company headquartered in Leicester.
To prepare for this debate, I have been in touch with several organisations across the sector to understand the devastating impact of the proposed legislation. To put my contribution into context, my career has been in luxury retail. In 1986, I opened Tiffany—the American jeweller—in this country in partnership with Tiffany’s in New York. This was a time when to be an entrepreneur was encouraged. The then-Chancellor proclaimed:
“It is the rediscovery of the enterprise culture … that will provide the only answer to the curse of unemployment, and the only true generator of new jobs”.
Little did I know at the time that this former Member of your Lordships’ House would become my father-in-law.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean is quite right in saying we need to reinvigorate the private sector. So, I started my research not in the luxury end of retail but in my local town in East Sussex. Heathfield Ironmongers, where I have shopped for the past 25 years, is closing on 31 January. Their website states:
“serving the local community since … 1919”.
It had suffered a drop in footfall after Covid, but the manager told me that the combination of the national insurance changes and the reduction of business rates relief was, as she put it, the final nail in the coffin.
Altus Group, the commercial real estate data provider, states that independent retailers are particularly expected to struggle this year. Around 85% of its predicted closures will be independents—that is 14,660 shops. Just think for a moment of the people who are currently employed there, and their families. What are they going to do?
I spoke to our immediate neighbour, who is a senior executive in a large insurance company. She told me that, partly because of this legislation, they will now be outsourcing most of their IT and project manager roles to India, Greece and Portugal. They are opening offices in these countries and making the UK roles redundant. They have accepted that, in order to do this, they will have to train people up to the level of competency that they have in the UK, but they say they have no choice, as their combined operating ratio—a measure of their underwriting profitability—would be too high if they retained their UK staff due to the changes in national insurance contributions.
One of the areas that is most affected—and we have heard this several times today—is the hospitality industry, in which Team Domenica plays a very small part. The group UKHospitality has calculated that the October Budget will deliver an increase to the annual tax bill of £3.4 billion, with a 10% rise in the cost of employment per person. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that businesses employing people on the national living wage will face the biggest hit from the increase. As an employer of 3.5 million people, hospitality is set to be the hardest hit. For example, it would cost an extra £1,140 to employ a student working 14 hours at the weekend. So, first-time workers will become unaffordable for hospitality businesses, thus removing valuable entry-level experience and training.
The overwhelming feedback I have received from across the sector is that this is just not sustainable. There were three particularly interesting points raised by the people I spoke to. First, all large businesses will be hit equally, but the Government should have considered the mix of labour costs on companies’ P&L and tiered the increase. Businesses with a high mix of labour will be hit harder and profitability will be wiped out. Secondly, businesses are significantly reducing the amount of capital they would have been spending in the year ahead as they cannot justify the level of returns, so growth will be stifled. Thirdly, inflation will accelerate as everyone is looking at increasing prices to mitigate.
On the charitable area, for my small charity alone the national insurance changes will add an extra £39,000 a year. However, for a charity like Mencap, which looks after 4,000 people with learning disabilities, the impact is huge, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has said. I spoke to Jon Sparkes, the CEO of Mencap, who told me that it has contracts with 80 local authorities, providing 650 different services. It has 5,000 staff, and large numbers of front-line care workers who are on the national minimum wage. Mencap’s income is £200 million a year. This is the bottom line, with no margin on the delivery of service. There is no way it can absorb these extra costs.
The impact of lowering the threshold will be £5 million, with a further £1 million due to increasing the headline rate to 15%. Jon told me that Mencap is having to give notice to 60 services and is working flat out to try to transfer them before 1 April to avoid the financial hit, but he does not think that it will be able to do that. Again, pause and think of the human cost of this: of the people who rely on these services, and of the families who thought they had found a safe haven for the people who they care most about and who are the most vulnerable. These are statutory services, so can the Minister give an undertaking that the public purse will pay for these public services?
Hospices are particularly impacted as most hospital charities have significant retail operations, employing many people close to the national living wage and people on short-term contracts. My colleague, Brian Duffy, CEO of the Watches of Switzerland Group, started the Watches of Switzerland Group Foundation. It supports a variety of charitable endeavours, most notably the King’s Trust and food banks. These organisations struggle to meet the demand for their services. They utilise volunteers where possible, but they also have permanent staffing and management costs. Brian told me that the message from the charities is that the increase in national insurance contributions can be funded only by cutting back on expenditure to those who need it most.
The outlook, frankly, is bleak. The optimistic entrepreneurial spirit will be stifled. Wealth creation will be stymied. This is a tax on employment, and the private sector is a sacrificial goat. Meanwhile, the state sector, which has decreasing rates of productivity, expands. Does the Minister agree that His Majesty’s Government should commit to the interests of wider society and not just the public sector?
During the election campaign, Keir Starmer declared:
“Small businesses are the beating heart of our economy, our communities and our high streets. Our Plan for Change will drive economic growth across the country so small businesses can thrive”.
How hollow that sounds now, and especially at Heathfield Ironmongers.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest. The pleasure is allayed slightly by the fact that I cannot hope to rise to the excellence of her speech, which I hope the Minister observed very carefully—but perhaps he was too busy.
Like my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, I declare an interest as an employer. With the proposal to further raise employers’ NICs, the Government seem to want to pursue, in a manner that is hard to understand or explain, yet another way to damage the economy. I offer the Government a few morsels of attempted sanity. Taxing business at higher rates—making it more difficult to start up, maintain or expand a business—was, I am very much afraid to say, tried by the recent Conservative Government over the last few years and it did not work. In the period 2023-24, the economy ground to a halt. Now this new Government are trying the same approach. How can we possibly expect the outcome to be any different this time?
Over the past 18 months or so, while doing research for a book I have been writing, I have studied the available literature on the impact of taxes on economic growth. The clear consensus is that the taxes that hit the economy the worst are taxes on business and the business taxes that have the most negative impact on employment are—surprise, surprise—employment taxes. The clue is in the name employers’ NICs: “employers”; you know, the ones who employ people. Many employers would be happy if they could employ others merely out of the goodness of their heart, but that is not how the world works for the private sector. To keep a private sector enterprise going, a profit must be made. For that, taxes cannot be too high or else the cost of employing an employee becomes prohibitive, the business loses money and then it has to close down. So the first law of tax is: do not tax a business so high that the employers cannot afford to employ the employees. Yet that is exactly what the increase in employers’ NICs does.
Why on earth have our new Government decided to raise employment taxes to a new high? I discern three possible reasons. The first is to achieve economic growth. That is what the Government say their number one objective is, so in theory they must have thought that increasing these tax rates would increase economic growth. The second possibility is a less noble one: to find the money to pay off their allies. After all, politics involves trade-offs, so perhaps that is why they need to do this. The final possibility is that it is just not them in charge. Rather, they are in the grip of the fabled Treasury orthodoxy, taking their orders from officials at the dreaded OBR and the Treasury.
Let us look at these three possibilities. The first is that they are doing it to achieve economic growth. That has certainly been the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s chant—“growth, growth, growth”—both during the election and ever since. The trouble is that this Government have never laid out their theory of what actually creates growth. Beyond discreditable tropes about green jobs, the numbers of which will have little impact on the long-term economy, the Government have been unable to figure out what they have to do to achieve growth.
However, the answer is standing clearly in front of them. The repeated conclusion of every study on growth is: to grow an economy, you need government expenditure in the low 30 per cents, or less, of GDP, with tax revenues at around the same level; and you need light regulation that allows businesses—indeed, all enterprises—to get on with the job of providing the goods and services that the market wants, at a decent price and good quality, without having to spend all their time jumping through regulatory hoops. That is it. Economies with public sector expenditure levels in the mid 40 per cents of GDP, such as ours, taxes at the same high rate and ever-increasing regulation just do not grow fast, if at all. If this new Government really wanted to grow fast, they would be full of plans to shrink expenditure, to tax less and to regulate less. On all three dimensions, they are doing the opposite.
What is the conclusion? Either the claim that the Government are all for growth is just a chant or a slogan and not really meant, or they are so inept that, despite truly wanting the economy to grow—you have to believe that they do—they have no clue that increasing employers’ NIC will have exactly the opposite effect. I wrote an article for a Sunday newspaper yesterday, citing the instance of a friend running a 35-person high street business who, just to stay afloat after these tax hikes, has to fire two of his employees. He had planned to raise his headcount by two before this. The comments section below my article had entries from business owners claiming that they are in similar circumstances—having to fire people—or, worse, saying that the higher taxes mean, as my noble friend Lady Monckton described, that they have to close down their entire business.
As an interposition, I spoke to this friend this morning. He told me that he has been having difficulty figuring out how to fire two people. Obviously, it would not be great on either of them but, luckily, one of them resigned today. I said, “Where’s that employee going?” In an absolutely uncanny echo of what my noble friend Lord Horam said, my friend said, “Well, she’s gone to work for a local council”. She is being paid more. She can work from home for three days a week. On top of being paid more, she is getting that wonderful golden defined benefit pension. What else? Oh yes, she gets a year’s paid maternity leave.
Where is the money coming from that allows local councils and the Government, and the public sector in general, to pay for all of this? The money is not there. My noble friend talked about the fact that we are now below the middle of the advanced economies in GDP per capita. A while back, we were vying with America for the best GDP per capita in the world.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, probably would have described the situation of this new public sector employee as fair, because, after all, that is what she would need for a great life. However, the money is not there for what the Benches opposite always like to describe as “fair”. The noble Lords on the Benches to my left have an inexhaustible list of societal needs that must be paid for. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, rightly decried the decline in our Armed Forces expenditure. But the money is not there.
Why is it not there? It is precisely because of the high-tax, high-spend, high-regulation policies that Governments—on both sides of this House, I am afraid—have pursued over the last 25 years. During that 25 years we have not grown, precisely because of spending money on what was fair and what was needed, rather than spending money that we actually had. As a result, our economy has not grown. Had we grown more—say, at the same rate as the United States did during that time—our economy would now be 40% larger than it is right now. The money would be there. There is your needed money—the money that comes from economic growth. There is the economic growth which this Government’s tax increases will instead throttle.
It is not just my friend and his small business. As has been described today, millions of organisations are affected by this tax raise, not just SMEs but charities, NHS general practices, the arts and so on. Employment losses will, over time, be in the hundreds of thousands. I offer the Government a gentle hint: economic growth comes—despite a valiant attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to assert otherwise—from increases in employment, not decreases.
The second hypothesis as to why the Government see it as necessary to impose this NIC hike is that, having paid off their allies so lavishly in the first few weeks after the election, they now need to find the money to pay for this; a 15% pay rise for train drivers and a 22% pay rise for junior doctors, and still those friends of theirs threaten to go right back on strike. With friends like these, I need say no more.
It is certainly true that these expensive commitments—along with so much money about to be poured down the drain on placating the green crowd and to satisfy other allies who think that the answer to the world’s problems is more and more regulation, so that a new regulator or quango is being brought into existence for every week so far that Labour has been in power—mean that an awful lot of money is being spent. With the Civil Service expanding in its thousands by the week, there are no savings in sight to help the Government pay for all these extra commitments.
We come to the third and final hypothesis: that the Government have been told what to do. Without any serious experience in this area, they therefore have no option but to succumb to their officials, but that in turn is driven by the OBR, which knows not much more about business and the economy than do the Government. It is the blind leading the blind.
The Government have created this problem. They increased expenditure in their Budget by £70 billion. Even with an increase to employers’ NICs, only half of that increase would be covered by additional taxes, and even that amount is true only if you believe the estimation of how much extra tax will be collected. It is, in fact, even worse than this. There is a large extra amount of expenditure that the Government and the OBR have persuaded themselves can be categorised in the national accounts as some form of investment, so that it is not included in the published deficit numbers. But every penny of that so-called investment money will have to be found through additional borrowing, which, added together, brings the additional level of borrowing needed to pay for all this to an extra £50 billion or so—and that is assuming that the economy grows at forecast, which an NIC hike makes quite unlikely.
The OBR asserts that, on net, some £15 billion will be raised from this NIC hike. It acknowledges, albeit to far too small a degree, that employment will decline as a result of this tax increase. That should make Labour hang its head. If the Government were to abandon the NIC raise, the OBR says that that would create a further £15 billion hole. The Government are doing what they have been told to do, and thus they proceed with this NIC raise.
The Growth Commission has contradicted the OBR’s calculation and calculates that the long-term impact of this tax increase will be negative £18 billion—and that is even before you get into the social and economic disruption of large numbers of people being laid off. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, who is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, you pay for this by not doing it. Surely, in his extensive and distinguished public life, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, must have understood that ever-increasing tax and spend just does not work.
What is the conclusion? We have a new Government. They came, they saw, they paid off their allies. Without clear detail they claimed a pre-existent £22 billion black hole, but this claim served only to make their options more constrained. They have accepted what they have been told to do by their officials, but imposing this tax is going to make the economy’s position, and theirs, much worse. They still do not appear to have a clue as to what they need to do to get economic growth going in this country.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I am almost finished.
I earnestly entreat the Government to set out on a search for an economic growth plan—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am so sorry, but the noble Lord has now spoken for over 15 minutes. I suggest that he bring his remarks to a close.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I just informed the noble Baroness that I was about to finish, and I would have finished by now had she not interrupted a second time. I remind her that it is an indicative time, and one interruption—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am so sorry, but the Companion states that Back-Bench contributions are limited to 15 minutes.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. It is an indicative time. I will finish.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I will finish. I entreat the Government to set out on a search for an economic growth plan that relies on the facts about growth, not on the unsupported feelings that currently seem to drive their decision-making. I thank noble Lords for their attention.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, as we have now heard numerous times this evening, the changes within this Bill will have a devastating impact on charities, the most vulnerable people in our society and the social fabric of this country.
There are over 170,000 registered charities in the UK, and many more that are not registered. Charities in this country employ somewhere around 1 million people, so the effect of this Bill on them will be hugely significant. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has sent the Chancellor an open letter, signed by more than 7,000 charities, estimating that the changes will cost the sector around £1.4 billion. The short-term costs of a reduced charitable sector will be felt most immediately by those involved directly with charities. The downstream impacts longer term will be even more far-reaching, affecting everyone, undermining social cohesion and weakening our communities.
It is unacceptable that a change of this magnitude is being implemented with so little warning. The Labour Party made a manifesto commitment merely months ago not to raise national insurance rates, yet here we are with these radical changes due to come in from April—this was entirely unexpected.
Consider for a moment the senior execs of charities, large and small, suddenly facing such a dramatic challenge. Over time, it may be that contracts and grants can be adjusted and philanthropists encouraged to give more to make up some of the shortfall, but for now there is no time for that. The hard choices charities are confronting involve reducing staffing and cutting the services they provide; that is the reality of the situation. What charities deliver is not a “nice to have”; just how integral charities are can be seen by how deeply enmeshed they are in almost every area of our public services. More than 10,000 voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations contract to government each year, and around 70% of those contracts are from local government. There is barely a service that charities are not involved in. Whether it is helping to support those affected by domestic violence, drug and alcohol addiction, mental health issues or homelessness, or those with educational or training needs, charities are there at a local level, nimble and able to respond in a way that only they can, wrapping around what is needed within their locality.
A survey in October by the Local Government Association showed the dire financial picture in many local councils, with one in four in England saying it is likely to have to apply for emergency government bailout agreements to stave off bankruptcy in the next two financial years. At a national level, the picture is similar. The Government are releasing thousands of people early from prisons, many into the care of a Probation Service that is already under tremendous pressure. The needs of many of these former inmates are acute: they require housing support, mental health treatment, training, support to find work and more. According to the Ministry of Justice, 76% of current commissioned rehabilitation service contracts are led by voluntary, community or social enterprise organisations. How will these organisations cope, caught between the twin pressures of increased demand and increased costs?
Charities provide a structure through all areas of life that much else hangs off and depends on. They have a unique level of local and specialist knowledge, care and commitment, and the connections and social capital they generate through the commitment of philanthropists, volunteers and those working in the sector quite simply would not exist without them; the role they fulfil cannot be replicated. The Bill moves entirely in the wrong direction. It threatens to weaken further the charitable sector in this country at a time when we should be doing everything we can to strengthen it. Instead of placing completely unrealistic tax burdens on charities, the Government should look at what they can do to help them: match funding; helping smaller charities engage with contracting and grant processes; facilitating more clusters, best practice sharing and incubators; making it easier to volunteer; and the like. I urge the Government to think again on this Bill, given how grave the impact of continuing with it in its current form will be on many of the most vulnerable in our society.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the main concerns over the Bill have been pretty well explained by most speakers so far, and I will not repeat them. I want to concentrate mostly on the impact of these measures in Scotland, but I want to make a general observation on comments that businesses made to me during the election. There was no doubt at all, many of them said, that the chaos and incompetence of the previous Government were extremely disruptive to business confidence. I have had my breath taken away by the lectures we have had from the Conservative Benches who had 14 years to prove how they could grow the economy and spectacularly failed. I do not think we need to hear any more from them for quite a long time.
Many businesses said to me that they were looking for a change of Government to provide a period of calm and stability. Regular changes in taxes, whether personal, business or consumer taxes, sadly, usually are the currency of election campaigns. Many people said to me that they wanted predictability and stability rather than constant change. Unfortunately, the first few months of this Government have not delivered stability or predictability.
The Government argue that they promised not to increase taxes on working people, so pensioners were their first target. Farmers, too, may resent being told that they are not working people. But on top of these differentials, the Government’s apparent belief that loading the lion’s share of the additional tax burden on employers’ national insurance removes the impact on working people is pretty disingenuous. The OBR predicts, as has been pointed out, that it will provoke behavioural changes that will reduce the tax take from £22 billion to £16 billion or less. More significantly, the increased costs, combined with reduced confidence, will affect staffing, wages and investment and make the achievement of growth harder.
The impact of these changes will vary across different sectors and different parts of the UK. The Government have said they will compensate public sector employers, but it is not yet clear how. In any case, it appears that for Scotland the Government may argue that the Barnett consequentials should cover this, but that is based on a simple population calculation and does not take account of the different structure of the Scottish economy with its larger public sector employment. Some 22% of employment is in the public sector in Scotland, compared with 17% for the UK. On top of this differential, the Scottish public sector is also better paid, and the Scottish Government have agreed to more generous pay settlements than the UK Government. The impact on the Scottish hospitality sector is also proportionately harsher. According to UKHospitality Scotland, pubs, restaurants and hotels in Scotland pay substantially more in business rates than the equivalent in England, in some cases 66% to 70% more.
While the Scottish Government continue to be affected by UK-wide impacts, devolution allows them to pursue a different policy strategy from the UK as a whole. This has led to a larger, better-funded and better-paid public sector, but here is the rub: unfortunately, the outcomes have not followed through. While educational performance has improved in England, it has continued to decline in Scotland. The performance of the health sector has been as bad overall as in England, but with waiting times exponentially worse and no viable strategy for changing them yet apparent.
The Scottish Government have struggled with reform of the care sector and are mired in delay and uncertainty on this. On top of all this, they have pursued a strategy of higher taxation on middle and higher incomes, which has proved counterproductive, with net revenues overall apparently falling as people avoid tax, leave Scotland or are deterred from moving there in the first place. The UK Government could say, with reasonable justification, that the Scottish Government have used devolved powers to make their bed and should lie in it. However, the unanticipated rise in employers’ national insurance adds to burdens already imposed on Scotland and risks disadvantaging the people of Scotland disproportionately—people for whom the UK Government are also responsible.
Will the UK Government engage with the Scottish Government to consider the overall impact of both Governments’ budgets and how they can together explore ways of ensuring a fair outcome? Will they indicate that the compensation for the public sector will take account of, first, not just population but the differential; and, secondly, the overall impact on the arm’s-length public agencies, which the Scottish Government have not even quantified? In those circumstances, it should be possible to get an arrangement where the two Governments agree to take measures together, which will ease the burden on businesses and the poorer communities of Scotland. The Government have set their heart on a much better relationship with the devolved Administrations; this is a good place to start.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on the impact of the Bill on employment and job creation. This is of particular concern to me in my role as president of the Jobs Foundation, as noted in the register.
Before the general election, the Government committed themselves to raising the employment rate to 80%, which, as the Minister knows from previous debates, I very much support and am keen to see achieved. This commitment to getting 2 million people into work was reaffirmed in December, in the Get Britain Working White Paper. I was encouraged when the Prime Minister said that:
“Getting Britain back to work is at the heart of my mission to grow the economy”.
Given that there are roughly 800,000 job vacancies at the moment, an additional 1.2 million new jobs need to be created to achieve this objective. It seems clear, however, that increasing national insurance contributions for employers will make it immensely more difficult for us to achieve this important target. This is not just my opinion; it seems to be the growing consensus.
The former chair of John Lewis, Sharon White, who is reputedly on the shortlist to be the next Cabinet Secretary, said that these measures
“will obviously affect jobs and wages”.
The research director of the Resolution Foundation, James Smith, said that:
“This is definitely a tax on working people, let’s be very clear about that”.
The restaurateur Tom Kerridge, one of 120 business leaders to back the Labour Party ahead of the general election, said on Sky News that the NIC changes would lead to
“a huge amount of closures”.
Toby Dicker, founder of the Salon Employers Association, said:
“I am angry and sad and shell-shocked. Our industry is totally done. We can’t afford it”.
Finally, James Reed, the CEO of recruitment firm Reed—a company already mentioned by my noble friend Lady Bray—said, “We’re going to cut hiring, we’re going to make people redundant, we’re not going to invest, we’re going to offshore jobs”.
Is it any wonder then that the most recent employment index from S&P Global UK showed that, excluding the hit from Covid, we have just seen the largest fall in UK hiring since 2009? This confirmed the OBR forecast that the measures in the Budget would reduce the employment rate.
The Bill therefore seems completely at odds with the Get Britain Working White Paper and the Government’s commitment to achieving an 80% employment rate. In light of these conflicting signals, will the Minister give us some clarity on whether the Government remain committed to achieving the 80% employment rate?
I conclude with an analogy shared with me by a business leader to whom I was talking shortly before Christmas. I was talking to him about the Get Britain Working White Paper, and he was enthusiastic to do his bit to help get 2 million people from welfare into work. He suggested that this national objective requires a new Dunkirk: that a huge flotilla of businesses is needed to come together to create the new jobs, provide the training and give people a much-needed step-up in life. I know that businesses across the UK are willing to be part of such a flotilla. Business leaders want to help the Government achieve their employment target, but the Government need to support a new business environment that will help businesses thrive and create these 1.2 million extra jobs.
The business leader then concluded his Dunkirk analogy by saying, “With the Budget and the increase in national insurance, it feels like the Government have smashed our rudders and blown up our motors”. I agree with him. The Bill does not help the national effort to get people back to work, which is why I hope the Government will reconsider these measures and instead prioritise getting Britain working.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise that I too express my absolute opposition to the Bill. If enacted, this legislation’s ramifications would be far-reaching. In bringing this Bill before your Lordships’ House, the Government have not given proper, or indeed any, consideration to the damning and unintended consequences that this rushed, additional cost burden will have on a number of sectors. I will turn my attention to some of these issues and hope that the Minister will reassure me before the end of the debate that he will pick them up.
This whole tax increase feels very much like something the Treasury digs out on occasion, saying, “Here’s a quick way to get £10 billion or £16 billion, because you are guaranteed to get it. Don’t worry about the consequences: you’re guaranteed to get the money in quickly”.
As someone who has spent over 30 years in local government, I am all too acutely aware of the existing pressures we are witnessing across the UK in, for example, adult social care. I know that many other noble Lords across the House also understand and have raised these pressures. Across the country, care providers commissioned by upper-tier local authorities are already grappling with severe underfunding, which, thanks to the Government, will now be exacerbated by a 6.7% rise in the national living wage.
It should be noted that the £600 million allocated to social care in the Budget was entirely insufficient to offset the additional financial burden the Government have already placed on this sector, let alone to provide the lifeline and reform that adult social care so desperately needs at this time. The proposed national insurance hike compounds the challenges already faced by a sector under monumental pressure and threatens the very viability and provision of care services across the UK. Local authorities will not be able to meet the demand of raising the value of contracts to meet this unjustified tax hike. Where will the money come from unless further exemptions are agreed?
In the debates on this legislation as it progressed through the other place and in the speeches today, I have heard nothing that provides any hope to the many care providers, charities and businesses warning that, without exceptions in place, their business may be forced to close. This will inevitably leave vulnerable adults without essential care. We in this House must determine whether we are willing to risk that being an indirect but very real consequence of allowing the Bill to pass without adequate assessments and mitigations in place.
Further still, although I take some comfort from the fact that local councils receive grants to cover the costs of NIC increases when it comes to staff directly employed by local authorities, can the Minister confirm whether this will also be done for staff employed directly by wholly council-owned local authority trading companies, often referred to as LATCos? I ask this as some 60% of councils now have at least one trading company, if not more, many of which deliver important services and employ thousands of local people. In his summing up, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what assessments the Government have undertaken in this regard to evaluate the impact the Bill will have on these LATCos and councils more generally.
Given their very nature, I find it hard to believe that LATCos will find the private sector able to absorb the costs. With many councils now reliant on them for revenue generation, the House should consider how the Bill will inadvertently place additional pressures on our already cash-strapped councils, and thus could potentially and indirectly divert more funding away from the delivery of services.
The right reverend Prelate and others have raised the problem of special needs transport; a consequence of this rushed policy will be the negative impact and strain that will be placed on special needs school transport. I fear that many of these operators will not be able to retain commercial viability when it comes to the huge uplift in wage bills that they will face come April, which will inevitably lead to a potentially severe shortage in the availability of suitably qualified drivers and passenger assistants. What exceptions will the Government seek to put in place here?
Moving away from local government and turning to manufacturing, the Bill will have a profoundly negative impact on the sector. The Make UK/BDO Q4 Manufacturing Outlook survey highlights that business confidence among manufacturers has fallen at the sharpest rate due to rising costs. By reducing the NIC secondary threshold from £9,100 to £5,000, the Bill will bring many more manufacturing employees into the threshold. I fear that this will mean we lose yet more manufacturing jobs—not that we have that many—due to the Government compounding the already complex and challenging circumstances faced by the industry under the pressure of the significant cost burdens of retaining staff.
On SMEs, I urge the Government to hear the concerns they are voicing. SMEs are the backbone of our national economy, and many of these businesses already operate on the tightest of margins. I really fear that the Bill will be the final nail in the coffin for many SMEs, which are still recovering from the pandemic and grappling with inflation. We further know that the UK’s hospitality SMEs are under significant pressure at this time. They have weathered the storm of Covid, battled through the strain of rising energy costs and struggled on through one of the toughest Christmas periods yet, but many are now warning that the Bill will present a challenge too far and indeed be the final nail in their coffin.
If we take pubs, for example, the British Beer & Pub Association highlighted recently that one in three pubs is already operating at a loss. With the additional costs enabled by this legislation, we will see many pubs, restaurants and hospitality businesses shut their doors permanently.
I conclude here by highlighting that the Bill disproportionately affects SMEs, adult social services, children with special educational needs, and British manufacturing. This whole Bill, the family farm tax and the removal of the winter fuel allowances were all conspicuously absent from the Labour Party’s election manifesto—and, as I said right at the beginning, they also feel as if somebody’s bottom drawer in the Treasury has just been opened. To bring forward such consequential changes to taxation without a prior mandate completely erodes and undermines public trust in the Government. It also—this is the more serious point—undermines their democratic legitimacy.
Employers large and small, charities and local councils spanning the whole United Kingdom are calling on the Government to reverse this decision. I fundamentally believe that it is a retrograde step that will inevitably cause monumental and irreversible damage to our economic outlook, and I therefore put it to your Lordships’ House that in the national interest, this Bill needs to go.
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, there have been two main criticisms of the Bill. The first is that it expands the size of the state and is therefore bad, and the second is that it destroys jobs. Both arguments are misconceived. I will take them in turn.
As we all know, the share of taxes in GDP has increased enormously in recent years, and this Budget will set a record high. If you say that in a certain tone of voice, that sounds deeply shocking—“That must be wrong, surely”. But, of course, it is absolutely what it should be, for, as countries get richer, people spend an ever smaller share of their income on food, clothing and other necessities and they want to see a rising share devoted to things such as health and education. But these are things that are most effectively provided by the state, so it is totally logical that a rising share of GDP should go on publicly funded goods and services.
On top of that comes spending on welfare, in the form of income transfers. As we get richer, we live longer and that increases the share of GDP on pensions. We can also afford to provide better incomes to the sick and disabled. So both public services and welfare naturally get a rising share of GDP as income rises. That is an absolutely standard finding, quite general across many countries—sometimes referred to as Wagner’s law—and it requires a higher share of GDP devoted to taxes. So it is not only a logical development but—here is a different type of evidence—it is one that is good for the nation’s well-being.
There has been a lot of research on the relationship between taxes and well-being, and, on balance, the finding is that, at a given level of income, high-tax countries are happier than those with lower tax. Nordic countries are the clearest example of high-tax countries with higher levels of happiness. But, even if you leave them out, high-tax countries are no less happy than low-tax countries with the same income. America is quite a good example of a low-tax country that is not very happy compared with other countries at the same income level.
These are quite general but fundamental arguments for political economy, but there are also some very specific reasons why we need higher taxes at the present time. One is climate change: we need public money to facilitate the transition. The second is defence: we need more for that. Thirdly, we are servicing a higher level of debt than usual. Finally comes ageing and the services that that demands. So the Government are absolutely right to be raising taxes.
The second question is whether this particular tax rise is bad for jobs. Obviously, any tax of itself reduces aggregate demand and employment—that goes without saying. You could attack any tax on those grounds, but it is pointless to do so without taking into account the rest of the measures embedded in the same Budget. The OBR said that this Budget taken as a whole was
“one of the largest fiscal loosenings of any fiscal event in recent decades”.
In other words, in plain English, this Budget will, on balance, increase employment and jobs.
In that sense, the tax will be more than compensated for by the positive elements in the Budget. It is true that, since the impact of the tax is uneven across sectors—that has come out a lot in this debate—there may be some costs of adjustment. One should not ignore that, but they will be small and short-lived. In the meantime, total employment will be sustained by the overall effects and structure of the Budget.
In the long run, looking beyond the short period when demand is the main factor affecting employment, there has been a lot of research on the effects of employment taxes on the level of employment, and the general consensus is that there is no effect on the level of unemployment associated with a higher or lower level of taxes on employment. The taxes are borne by employees and employment is unaffected.
So the Bill is both necessary and desirable. It will raise the share of taxes in GDP, which is what we need, and it will not damage overall employment either in the short run, because of the fiscal expansion, or in the long run, as I just said. This is a Bill we should strongly support.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, this is an unsatisfactory Bill, not because it raises taxes—that was, and is, an obvious necessity—but because it does so in a way that exacerbates existing unresolved and urgent problems or, as in the case of social care, in effect ignores them entirely.
The provisions of this Bill will probably not help with growth, the Government’s chief objective. I say “probably not help”, but that may be a little bit generous. Many noble Lords who have spoken this evening have felt strongly that the Bill will have negative consequences for growth. Arguably, two of the most important engines of growth, or what have been and should continue to be engines of growth, are our SMEs and our higher education sector. This Bill has damaging consequences for both. I will speak a little later about our university sector, but I want here to make some points about SMEs.
My colleague in the Commons, Christine Jardine, asked the Minister at Second Reading:
“How does it help morale and positivity among small businesses, which will be vital to economic growth, if some of them see their salary bills double?”
The Minister replied by saying:
“I urge her to understand that what we are doing on national insurance is taking a tough decision to fix the public finances, while at the same time providing the stability that businesses need to invest and grow””.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/24; cols. 202-03.]
It is the last bit of that, frequently repeated as an explanation of or an excuse for government proposals, that is the problem.
No convincing case has been made for the proposition that the measures in the Bill will provide stability. Indeed, it is hardly surprising that many see the Bill’s measures as actually reducing stability and creating further uncertainty. In a recent survey, 44% of UK SMEs said that the NI increases would negatively affect them. As Todd Davison of Purbeck Personal Guarantee Insurance, an important operator in the SME arena, noted:
“The increase in employer National Insurance contributions … could prove to be a fatal blow to thousands of small businesses, despite the increase in the Employment Allowance”.
He went on to say:
“There will be thousands of business people who have put their home and life savings on the line by signing a personal guarantee for a business loan who will now be facing some very difficult choices”.
I note in passing that, in trying to justify the national insurance rise, the Government have pointed to the increasing availability of funds for the NHS. This is, of course, welcome, but the extra funding is being raised in the wrong way and on the wrong people—and what about carers and the care sector? Will we have to wait until 2008 and beyond for any significant progress? In the meantime, what additional support will be available to offset increased costs? What about the additional payroll cost to GP practices? The Institute of General Practice Management estimates that the NI rise will mean that the average GP surgery tax bill will rise by around £20,000 a year. How is this to be mitigated? Second Reading in the Commons did not produce an answer to any of these questions. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the issues about SMEs, the care sector and GPs when he replies.
I now turn to another critical factor in growing our economy: our higher education sector. I declare an interest as a member of council at UCL. Our university sector has a very strong international reputation, very high academic standards and world-class research output and influence. This is despite the UK spending significantly less on R&D than our rivals. We spend 1.7%, China 2.2%, the US 2.8% and Germany 3.1%. However, in the last QS worldwide ranking, the UK had four universities in the top 10 and 16 in the top 100.
The Government explicitly acknowledge the importance of the sector. The Secretary of State for Education wrote to vice-chancellors on 4 November last. She started her letter by saying:
“The institutions which you lead make a vital contribution, as education and research institutions, to our economy, to society, and to industry and innovation. They contribute to productivity growth; play a crucial civic role in their communities; and have a key role to play in enhancing the UK’s reputation across the globe. I also passionately believe in education for education’s sake: a more educated society is happier, healthier, more cohesive, and socially and culturally richer”.
She went on to say:
“I am clear that we need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing”.
She went on to speak of student numbers, international students and the financial status of the sector. This financial status is in need of very urgent attention.
The main leader in last Thursday’s Times was critical of the very large travel and expenses costs of some vice-chancellors at a time when the sector is under critical financial pressure. The leader’s chief point concerned this financial pressure. It said:
“There is no doubt that higher education is experiencing extreme financial difficulties”.
It pointed out that these extreme difficulties will be made worse by the increase in employers’ NI. The small but welcome increase in student fees will increase revenue by around £370 million. The increase in national insurance will cost universities around £450 million.
The Times went on to note that, according to the OfS, the combination of lower revenues from both home and overseas students means that nearly three-quarters of our universities will be running a deficit by the end of this academic year. Some 40% already have less than a month’s cash in the bank and 10,000 jobs are expected to be lost in this academic year. This is a genuine and pressing crisis.
If we want to maintain our large and very high-quality university sector, if we want to remain among the global leaders in the life sciences, if we want to continue to create the IP that forms the basis of new and innovative commercial ventures, and if we want our towns, cities and regions to continue to benefit from their universities, we must act. Increasing the national insurance burden is to act completely in the wrong direction.
In the absence of a coherent plan for our universities, the Government have, in an almost cavalier way, significantly worsened their already extreme financial difficulties. There is a pattern here. There is no sign of a meaningful intervention to relieve social care of the increased costs imposed by the Bill. There is no sign of a meaningful plan for social care before 2028. There is no proposal for providing significant help to SMEs. There is no proposal for helping GP surgeries to mitigate the effects of this Bill.
There are plenty of indicators and predictions about the damage that these NI changes will bring to critical parts of our economy and society, but no indication of how this damage may be mitigated or avoided and nothing positive for growth—but plenty in the negative.
There is much to regret in how and on whom the Government are imposing this significant tax, and much to regret in the effect of this tax increase on carers, on SMEs, on GP surgeries and on our universities. I strongly support the regret amendment from my noble friend Lady Kramer. If she chooses to divide the House, as I hope she will, these Benches will support her.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to make a small intervention. The noble Lord is arguing passionately against the Government’s job cuts and the damage that will be done to care providers, charities and others. Does he therefore agree with me that this Bill must be scrutinised in a Committee on the Floor of the House? Does he also agree that it is in the interests of the charitable sector for this Bill to be scrutinised as fully as possible?
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I think there were three questions there, so perhaps I can answer very quickly: no, no and no.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I wish the Minister a happy new year and offer him our blessing in his role for this year as well. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has suggested that the impact of the measure we are discussing is limited, but we have heard today that the impacts are likely to be quite widespread. Indeed, the HMRC estimate referenced by several Peers this evening, that some 900,000 businesses would lose out with an average annual increase per employee of £800, is not a limited impact.
Some of these issues may not come as a surprise to the Government. They would not surprise the OBR. At the time of the Budget, when general expectations were low—albeit not as low as today—the OBR modelled a tax take for this policy of £24 billion before its own estimate of mitigating actions. It notes in Chapter 3, on long-run impacts of Government policy, that the increase in NICs will have
“a persistent negative effect on work incentives and both labour demand and labour supply”,
which is why the £24 billion tax take falls to £18 billion in the first year and £15 billion in the second. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe set out in detail and my noble friend Lady Monckton spoke about so movingly, the Government’s jobs tax will have an impact on sectors all across the UK, including retail and hospitality businesses as well as charities, including hospices.
The policy, right at the start, was pushing at the likely limits of tax receipts. The OBR gives semi-official estimates from which government policy is partly made, so it is reasonable to ask the Minister whether he agrees with the estimates for tax yield in 2025-26 and 2026-27. Most of the OBR reduction to tax is based on a reduction in wages and a reduction of 50,000 people in employment. Should we assume that the Government accept that 50,000 job-loss number? It is already quite meaningful in an overall increase in employment between now and 2029 of 900,000, which itself is de minimis in a workforce of 33 million to 34 million—and that is based on higher economic growth numbers from a few weeks back. The eroding tax receipts and declining employment numbers expected by the OBR need a careful government response. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that there will be no need to raise tax further this year.
There is dissonance between the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth and the Chancellor’s guidance to the contrary and approach to tax. The NIC increase is part of a set of policies, including the lower threshold, the minimum wage and auto-enrolment, which put burdens on the labour market that make employers reluctant to take on staff. It is this mixture that was noticed immediately during the Chancellor’s October Statement, and which may have contributed to the apparent economic slowdown over recent weeks. The tax increase has become the break point between the Government’s guidance and their actual tax-raising approach. We might need the help of the eminent Belgian detective Hercule Poirot and his “little grey cells”, as well as the Minister, to help us understand and unravel an economic strategy that talks about growth and reducing barriers but sets tax policy with known job-reduction impacts and likely economic contraction.
Perhaps the Minister could help us understand the economic approach. Are the Government sensitive to the move of jobs in life sciences away from the UK? The tax system provides tax breaks for capital equipment that would likely support automation, as referenced earlier this evening. Are we expecting a reduction in employment, with fewer jobs for young people and more automation? That may bifurcate the employment market and increase even further the tax dependency and tax concentration we have on mobile and highly paid people.
The Minister has been very respectful to our debate but, as we enter 2025, the real debate around this topic has become much broader, with the Bank of England, the CBI and the Institute for Fiscal Studies all weighing in. The OBR is one thing, but the Bank is another—surely no better a forecaster than the Government, but aligned in its concerns with Peers today.
For now, the Government, through this tax rise in particular, have created a stagnant economy in which businesses do not grow, young people struggle to find work and professional jobs move to other countries, creating enormous fiscal risk for the future. As such, we on these Benches cannot support the Bill.
Before I conclude, I should address the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. It does not go far enough. As the House has heard today, there is an almost endless list of businesses and charities that will be hit hard by this policy. Given the appalling impact that the increase in NIC contributions is going to have, we will be tabling a Motion to ensure that the Bill is debated on the Floor of the whole House, giving it the proper scrutiny it deserves. Only by scrutinising the Bill to the fullest possible extent can we hope to improve it, to the benefit of businesses and charities across the country. The Liberal Democrats will have taken the first step in voting for this amendment today, but if they really care about the damage the Bill will do, they might consider voting with us on Wednesday.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this Second Reading of the national insurance contributions Bill, and in doing so to respond to the points raised by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions during today’s debate. The Budget in October involved taking some very difficult decisions: to clear up the mess that we inherited, to repair the public finances, to protect working people and to rebuild our public services. Faced with the reality of broken public finances and broken public services, not acting was not an option, which is why this Bill is necessary, as my noble friends Lord Chandos and Lord Layard observed.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, focused on the Government’s fiscal inheritance and sought to deny the £22 billion black hole that the previous Government left behind. I am, of course, very grateful to all noble Lords who mentioned the £22 billion black hole and thank them for doing so.
The Treasury has provided to the OBR a line-by-line breakdown of the previous Government’s unfunded commitments—260 separate pressures. Noble Lords need not just listen to the OBR and the Treasury. They need look only at the out-turn data: central government current expenditure, published by the ONS, shows that for the six months since March the out-turn is £11.8 billion higher than forecast. That is £11.8 billion over six months—well on course for £22 billion over the year. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, asked why the money is not there. I politely suggest to him that it is because of the policies he supported under the previous Government.
Faced with this reality, as the Chancellor was, any responsible Chancellor would have to act. Ignoring this black hole, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, would have taken us down a path of irresponsibility—the path chosen by Liz Truss in her mini-Budget, for which working people are still paying the price.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Noakes, Lady Bray of Coln and Lady Porter of Fulwood, the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, sought to argue that the Bill breaches the Government’s manifesto commitments. That is clearly not the case. Despite the pressures on the public finances, the Government made a clear choice at the Budget to keep our promises to working people by not increasing their income tax, national insurance or VAT, and we went further by freezing fuel duty. Compare this with the decision made by the previous Government to freeze income tax thresholds—a decision which cost working people over £30 billion. Instead, our Budget ensures that, from 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Moyo, the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Ashcombe, my noble friend Lord Eatwell and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, focused on the impact of these measures on employers. We heard a lot during today’s debate from the noble Lords opposite about how much they know about business. One does wonder, then, why the economy was such a catastrophe over the past 14 years.
I accept, though, that the Bill will require some employers to contribute more. These are difficult decisions and not ones we wanted to take. I understand and respect the legitimate concerns that have been raised, including by some businesses. But, taken together, the measures in the Bill mean that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities will either see no change or see their liabilities decrease. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway said, 865,000 employers will now pay no national insurance at all, and over 1 million employers will pay the same or less than they did before. In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, around 250,000 employers will see their liabilities decrease. Around 940,000 will see an increase and 820,000 will see no change.
The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, asked about reducing distortions. Recent changes, such as reforms of the off-payroll working rules, have reduced distortions and we will keep this issue under review.
To all those noble Lords who asked, we have no plans to combine income tax and national insurance. Relative to other countries, our tax burden on employers hiring average earners remains low. The UK will remain below the OECD average and the third lowest in the G7, below France, Italy, Germany and Japan.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, asked about the impact of these changes on the public sector. We have set aside funding to protect the spending power of the public sector, including the NHS, from the direct impact of the changes, totalling £4.7 billion next year, rising to £5.1 billion in 2029-30. We are now working with departments to ensure that this funding is allocated appropriately, and specific allocations will be set out in due course.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, the Barnett formula will apply in the usual way. My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in regular contact with the Scottish Government on funding, including on the application of the Barnett formula.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Sharkey, spoke about the impact of the Bill on GPs, dentists and pharmacists. As the noble Lords will know, every year, the Government consult with each sector about both what services they provide and the money that providers are entitled to in return under their contracts. As in previous years, this issue will be dealt with as part of that process. The Department of Health and Social Care will shortly confirm funding for GPs, dentistry and pharmacy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Scriven, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sharkey, asked about adult social care providers. The Government are providing a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26. To support social care authorities to deliver key services, we also announced a further £200 million for adult and children’s social care at the provisional local government finance settlement last month. This will be allocated via the social care grant, bringing the total increase of this grant in 2025-26 to £880 million, meaning that up to £3.7 billion of additional funding will be provided to social care authorities in 2025-26.
Several noble Lords—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Porter of Fulwood, Lady Bray of Coln, Lady Sater and Lady Neville-Rolfe, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell—focused on the impact on charities, including hospices. We are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. More widely, the Government provide support for charities, including hospices, via the tax regime, which is among the most generous of anywhere in the world. Tax reliefs for charities and their donors were worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark asked about listed places of worship. The outcome of this programme is currently being assessed by the DCMS, as it finalises its financial allocation for 2025-26. The right reverend Prelate also asked about SEN transport. In the Budget, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. This includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which covers special educational needs home-to-school transport schemes.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about childcare and the impact on the rollout of the expanded entitlement. Early years providers play a crucial role in driving economic growth, which is why we have committed to open 3,000 new school-based nurseries in this Parliament. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced that total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26 to support providers. On top of this, last month, the Department for Education confirmed an additional £75 million to help the sector expand next year, and a further £25 million to support childcare for disadvantaged children through the early years pupil premium.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sater, asked when the impact assessment will be published. The tax information and impact note was published on 13 November, alongside the legislation when it was introduced. The latest forecasts for tax revenues were published alongside the Office for Budget Responsibility’s October Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
Many noble Lords—including the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Lords, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Lord Londesborough, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark—focused on the wider macroeconomic impact of the Bill. As I said in my opening speech, not to act was not an option. The choices we have made were the only route to putting the public finances back on a stable path while protecting working people and rebuilding public services. The economic data we have seen in recent months is disappointing. In particular, the recent growth figures show the sheer scale of the challenge we face, and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, set out the dire inheritance that we faced on growth.
The fact is that there would have been far greater cost to continuing with the irresponsibility and instability that has been a near-constant feature of the past 14 years—from the chaos of Brexit and the disastrous deal that followed, which reduced GDP by 4%, through to the Liz Truss mini-Budget that crashed the economy and devastated family finances. Let us remember that the Office for Budget Responsibility has also been clear that, with particular reference to our capital investments, the Budget will increase the size of the economy in the long term.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, rightly identified the problem of inactivity, which is higher than it was before the pandemic. He rightly identified the issues in the benefits system that contribute to that. The Government will bring forward proposals in this area in the coming months. The noble Lord also asked about public sector productivity. Unlike the previous Government, we have introduced a 2% productivity target for all government departments and have said that above-inflation pay awards will be affordable only if they can be funded from improved productivity.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Moyo, spoke about the impact on inflation. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility says that it expects inflation to remain close to the 2% target throughout the forecast period. This is of course very different from the previous Parliament, when inflation peaked at 11.1% and was above target for 33 consecutive months, and when mortgages rose by an average of £300 a month following the Liz Truss mini-Budget.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Altrincham, spoke about employment. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s October forecast, which takes into account all tax measures announced in the Budget, forecasts that the unemployment rate will now fall to 4.1% next year and remain low until 2029. It also expects the number of people in employment to rise by 1.2 million over the course of this Parliament. As I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, on previous occasions, we remain committed to the 80% employment ambition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the impact of this Bill on living standards. As noble Lords will be aware, the previous Parliament was the worst for living standards ever recorded. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast shows that real household disposable income will increase in real terms every year over the course of this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about the impact of the Bill on wages. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility expects real wages to increase by 3% over the next five years.
This Bill also serves another key purpose: to fix our broken NHS and put an end to over a decade of underinvestment, neglect and inequality, as my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway said. That is because this Government inherited not only broken public finances but an NHS experiencing the worst crisis in its history. It is for this reason that the Budget included extra investment of £25.7 billion for the NHS over this year and next—investment that is possible only because of the measures in this Bill.
This Government had to take some very difficult decisions, reflected in the Bill we have debated today; not decisions we wanted to take, but necessary decisions to clear up the mess we inherited. Some noble Lords have today argued otherwise. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, set out her position eloquently, but I did not hear a single alternative proposal. What is her alternative—that we should have ignored the black hole in the public finances? That is the path of irresponsibility and a repeat of the path chosen by the Liz Truss mini-Budget. That is not the path chosen by this Government. Yes, it was a significant Budget, on a scale commensurate with the challenging inheritance that we faced.
I recognise that the measures in this Bill involve asking some businesses to contribute more. However, as a result, and made possible only by the measures contained in this Bill, we have now wiped the slate clean, creating a platform of stability in the public finances. In doing so, and in contrast to the previous Government’s choice to freeze income tax thresholds, we have protected working people, keeping our manifesto commitments not to raise their income tax, their national insurance, or VAT. Again, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell pointed out, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that this was the wrong tax to raise, but gave no detail about what other taxes she would raise. Would she have raised taxes on working people instead? The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, at least suggested taxing some pensioners more, but from the Official Opposition there simply is no plan.
We have made historic new investment in our NHS and begun to put an end to years of underfunding and neglect. The choices that we have made to repair the public finances, protect working people and invest in Britain’s future are the only responsible choices in the circumstances that we faced. None of these things would be possible without this Bill. This Government were elected on a mandate to fix the foundations of our economy, and that is exactly what we will do. The Bill delivers on that mandate and provides a foundation of stability upon which we will now build long-term sustainable growth so we can rebuild our public services and make working people better off.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very impressive Second Reading on a very important Bill. I hope that in Committee we can have a really constructive discourse in which we can hopefully find some common ground and make some progress. However, as I look at the Bill as it stands today, I am afraid that I continue to regret. Under those circumstances, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Tuesday 21st January 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 56-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (17 Jan 2025)
Lord Scriven
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means—(a) a person providing a care home service or a domiciliary support service who is regulated under—(i) Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008,(ii) Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, or(iii) Part 5 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010,(b) a person contracted to provide primary care under the provisions of—(i) Part 4 of the National Health Service Act 2006,(ii) Part 4 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, or(iii) sections 17J to 17O of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,(c) a person contracted to provide general dental services under the provisions of Part 2 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992,(d) a person contracted to provide pharmacy services under the provisions of—(i) Part 7 of the National Health Service Act 2006, or(ii) Part 8 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013, or(e) a charitable provider of health and care, or(f) a person providing hospice care whether in a hospice or elsewhere.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Scriven’s amendments to Clause 2, page 1, line 12 and Clause 2, page 1, line 14, provides that care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commissioned dentists, NHS commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care, and those providing hospice care would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 1, 16 and 19, which stand in my name and are supported by my noble friend Lady Kramer and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. These amendments address the implications of the national insurance contribution increase on independent contractors, small businesses and charitable providers of health and social care. The purpose of the amendments is clear: it is to exempt essential providers from the impact of the national insurance contribution hike.
Let us first consider what this increase means for a sector that forms the backbone of community healthcare: pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, hospices, GP surgeries and social care providers. These vital services, already under immense financial pressure, are struggling to meet the growing needs of our community. By imposing additional financial burdens, the Government risk undermining their ability to deliver care, with potentially devastating consequences for both providers and the people they serve.
Research by my party reveals some stark issues. For GP practices, the national insurance contribution will cost an estimated £125.5 million annually, equivalent to more than 2 million lost GP appointments each year. At a time when some people already endure long waiting times, this is simply unacceptable. In social care, the Nuffield Trust estimates an annual cost increase of £900 million due to the national insurance contribution increase, yet the recent Budget allocated only £600 million per annum to this sector, leaving a £300 million funding gap. This financial black hole threatens to push some providers towards collapse, reducing access to support keeping individuals independent and out of NHS care.
Hospices, which provide compassionate care to terminally ill individuals and their families, face an additional annual cost of £30 million. Some hospices will need to raise as much as an extra £200,000 each year. With many already heavily dependent on donations, such increases could force them to scale back services, lay off staff or even shut down some services entirely.
Community pharmacists, already operating on razor-thin margins, will incur an average additional cost of £12,000 per pharmacy annually. These pharmacists are vital lifelines for millions, yet the national insurance increase threatens the very survival of some of them.
Dentists facing rising costs could lead to higher patient charges and reduce access to NHS care. At a time when NHS dentistry care accessibility is already in crisis, the Government’s decision will exacerbate the problem, potentially creating further dental deserts across the country.
It is worth noting that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, have tabled Amendments 45 and 61, which are not in this group, proposing to increase the employer allowance for dental practices and requiring a review of the impact on certain sectors, including dentistry. However, the employment allowance, regardless of its level, is unavailable to dental practices that derive more than half their income from NHS services. Without a targeted exemption for the national insurance contribution hikes, NHS dental practices may be forced to reduce their NHS commitment to below 50% to qualify for support, with dire consequences for patient access. It is patients who will ultimately pay the price if the Government fail to act.
When we weaken our health and social care providers, the consequences are felt by individuals and communities. Fewer GPs, or fewer GP services, mean more crowded A&E departments. A reduction in social care providers leaves vulnerable individuals without support to live independently. Cuts to hospice services deprive families of the comfort and dignity they need during their most difficult moments.
The Government’s national insurance increase treats commissioned non-state providers of NHS and social care as though they were just ordinary businesses rather than essential public service partners. It fails to recognise their unique role in safeguarding the health and well-being of our nation. The economic rationale for this policy is flawed. By burdening health and social care providers with additional costs, the Government risk reducing services or, in extreme cases, forcing closures. This in turn will increase pressure on already overstretched NHS emergency services, leading to longer delays, worse health outcomes and higher long-term costs for the taxpayer.
This national insurance contribution increase on health and social care providers is penny-wise and pound-foolish policy-making at its worst. The solution is straightforward: reverse the national insurance contribution increase for health and social care providers that are commissioned by the state. This is not just a financial necessity; it is a moral imperative. These providers are already planning staff redundancies, service reductions and potential closures. They need certainty that their funding will be adequate from April, and fully funded, and that it will cover the additional costs. It would be deeply disingenuous for Ministers to suggest that the providers can absorb these costs or deal with the uncertainty if the Minister cannot guarantee that they will be funded. They will have significant effects on the ability of these providers to provide business continuity.
The Treasury may conduct abstract modelling, but the reality on the ground is stark. Front-line health and social care providers are directly affected and making plans now. These service providers are making plans today to reduce staff numbers and reduce access to services. The thousands of small businesses, independent contractors and charities need certainty that the money will be there from April and fully funded. Hollow and shallow words to the effect that this is all part of the normal contract negotiation, or part of the wash-up of next year’s funding settlement, will not stop the notices of reduced hours or redundancies going out. It will not stop the changes in opening hours or reduced access to services that are now being implemented.
We need to ask: why the two-tier system? If the direct state providers of NHS care that provide services can be treated in a different way—in that, where normally they would be told it is part of a contract negotiation, they have been told with certainty that this provision will be funded—why not provide the same certainty now for non-state providers? After all, they treat the same people and patients, providing care and support in our community.
The cost of exempting these providers can and should be through a fairer taxation system. My party has proposed raising the money required by reforming taxes on large, profitable corporations, particularly in the technology, financial and gambling sectors. For example, a modest increase in the digital services tax would generate significant revenue while not placing essential services at risk. The national insurance hike that the Government are proposing undermines the very providers who care for our sick and elderly and our most vulnerable. If implemented, they will jeopardise community health and social care and endanger the futures of countless essential services.
The Government have the power to change course. By reversing the national insurance increase for these vital providers and adopting a fairer, more sustainable approach to raising revenue, they can protect the thousands of small businesses, independent contractors and charities that safeguard our nation’s health and well-being. I urge the Government to act now and I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Over 30 years ago, as an MP I went to see my predecessor, complaining that Governments do not understand small businesses. At that time there was a Conservative Government, who did some things to rectify that position. Ten years ago, the family business, of which I was the chairman, closed. I am grateful that I closed it when I did; we did not have to put up with Covid, Brexit or this type of thing.
I am saying this because I am not sure that Governments understand small businesses. The pharmacies, dentists and GPs we are talking about here are small businesses. I have always described the Treasury as being like your parents, who do not let you have the things that you want because they say you cannot afford them, but the damage that it could do with this increase in national insurance contributions will be devastating for pharmacies, GP practices, hospices and others.
In the other place, when Members of Parliament want to get beneath the skin of people on the other side, they occasionally say such things as, “What about the sick and dying?” I have heard that quite a few times. In this case, I have to say that those are the people who will suffer because of this increase. I do not have the financial wisdom to know whether the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about how to raise the money is viable. However, I have to say that this measure being put forward is not the correct one, because it will have such an adverse effect not just on those businesses but on the people served by them.
I know that Governments never give way on these things—I have been around long enough to know that that is the last thing they would do—but I urge the Government to have another look. I do not expect them to accept the amendments today—they may come back with an improved version—but they must look at this seriously, because it is a mistake. We will come on later to charities, which is another big issue, but for the moment we are talking about what is contained in these amendments and I urge the Government to think long and hard about what they are doing.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would like to give one example from the social care sector which concerns this group of amendments. Cyrenians is a charity in the south-east of Scotland that supports people suffering from homelessness. It is a very active charity, with over 60 services, employing more than 200 staff and providing vital support to people who are at risk of homelessness or are suffering from it. It calculates that the effect of these changes will cost it approximately £170,000 a year, which is a very substantial amount, considering that it depends on charity to support the services it runs. As a result of this, it will have to diminish the training and development of the staff it employs, which in turn will have an adverse impact on the quality of the service that it provides to the people in need of it.
This unintended consequence is an example of the severe effect on an individual charity of this kind in the third sector in Scotland that is providing vital help to people facing homelessness. I need not add that homelessness is an emergency in Scotland and is recognised as such by the Scottish Government, so anything that diminishes the support that is given to people facing homelessness is a matter of grave concern. I do not expect that the Government will accept these amendments, but I ask them to consider carefully whether it is necessary for charities of this kind to suffer that kind of consequence. It is not so much the charity that will suffer but people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The example that he just gave us illustrates, down at the level of fine detail, the broader point I want to make about charitable organisations and non-governmental, not-for-profit organisations.
In thinking about making a contribution to this debate, I looked up contributions around the phrase, “I wouldn’t start from here”, to see some quotations. I found lots of rather repetitive jokes—noble Lords can look them up for themselves—so I shall aim not to be repetitive. As I said at Second Reading, the Green Party believes we should start with a wealth tax so that the people with the broadest shoulders make contributions to society in order that we can do what we need to do: invest far more in our austerity-stricken services and infrastructure and tackle the climate emergency and nature crisis. However, we can combine two things here and focus on charities and non-governmental organisations. We are talking about hospices, for goodness’ sake, which these amendments of which I am broadly in favour, deal with.
I want to cross-reference two Early Day Motions in the other place: EDMs 374 and 380, tabled by my honourable friend Ellie Chowns. They look at what a mess the social care sector is in now, with the chronic underfunding and the workforce shortages problems. They also note how much the voluntary sector is already under strain from escalating operating costs and cuts to contract funding.
The elements of these amendments that are worth focusing on are voluntary sector charities and not-for-profit organisations. I have a proposal to put to the Minister; it comes from the charities and NGOs that I have spoken to. They are saying, “Yes, we can imagine a scenario where we could cope with this national insurance rise, but not on 6 April, which is so close, with our budgets all set out and our staffing set in the position it is now”. Would the Government consider, specifically in the case of charities, non-governmental organisations and not-for-profits—particularly those in social care; the Government can draw the lines wherever they like—postponing for a year? This would surely not involve that much money in terms of the Budget, but postponing for a year would give these organisations the chance to reorganise their budgets so that they have a chance to prepare for this situation. That is neither where I would like to end up nor where I would like to start, but it is a constructive suggestion to help these organisations, many of which are in desperate straits.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, it is rather unusual for a Bill that will have such a devastating impact on our country, businesses, charities and so on to have its Committee stage in Grand Committee. Normally, we would have it on the Floor of the House. It is certainly true that past national insurance Bills have been taken in Grand Committee, but it is distressing that the Government have chosen to push this Grand Committee to consider a very controversial Bill that will affect many groups of people. It should be taken on the Floor of the House.
I hope that this is neither a precedent nor a move that drives us in the direction of the House of Commons, which moved towards the timetabling of Bills, and proper scrutiny of important Bills, on the Floor of the House. We are familiar with the consequences of that: us having endless amendments to legislation that has not been properly scrutinised. If this was about saving time, I do not think it is going to work, because the fact that we cannot have votes in this Committee will mean us spending, perhaps unnecessarily, rather a long time on Report. Of course, the whole point of Committee stage is that it enables a bit of to and fro and discussion under the rules that apply in that respect.
I find myself in an unusual position in the Grand Committee, speaking on a highly controversial Bill, devastating in its consequences. The Minister is keen on telling us about black holes and this creates an enormous black hole in the delivery of public services and for businesses up and down the land. The unusual position in which I find myself is being in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I started to make notes to find something that I thought he had got wrong, but I could not say anything until I looked at the amendment, because the flaw in his erudite and proper analysis of the damage that will be done to GPs, social care, pharmacies, hospices and others is the distinction that he makes between the public and private sectors.
Apparently, if one is doing this in the private sector, it is okay to slap on a great tax that means one has to consider dismissing staff and so on. But if it is in the public sector, that is completely unacceptable. This is particularly egregious, although I think, and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, he makes an exception for the provision of care home services in the private sector. I am not sure if that is right. I shall happily give way to him if he thinks I have got it wrong. In other respects, however, it is all about giving—
Lord Scriven (LD)
My amendment is clear. It is not just about the public sector. It talks about anyone who is contracted, which could be in the private sector.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Yes, but that that completely removes the private sector providing, for example, social care. A report on social care from the Economic Affairs Committee, which I chaired some time ago, was very much endorsed by the House as a whole—there was unanimous agreement across the House. It made clear what is happening in private care homes, for example. People who are paying their own fees, as opposed to them being paid by the local authority, are being charged up to 40% more to subsidise people who are in those homes as a result of the local authority. Here we have a situation where the burden is placed even more strongly on people providing care out of their own savings and resources.
It seems to me that a distinction is being made between the elements that are providing care. For example, in dentistry, every time I go to the dentist—I see him every six months, when he has me in a position of some vulnerability—he tells me that he is unable to take on NHS patients because if he does so, the amounts he is allowed to charge mean that he is making a loss. That loss occurs because of staff and other costs, which will increase as a result of these measures. That will mean that the problem of getting dental care in the NHS, which is acute at present and even more acute for people with particularly severe orthodontic conditions, will get worse. He tells me, for example, that people can wait until their teenage years before they get treatment, and then they have to show that they have had treatment for the previous few years. If they have not had that, they are no longer eligible. The result is that people do not get treatment at all. Everyone knows that NHS dentistry is in crisis. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, pointed out, this will make it even worse.
Then we have the issue of the hospices. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned the case of Cyrenians and I would be remiss if I did not. My noble friend Lady Goldie asked me to mention the letter that she received from that organisation, and the noble and learned Lord highlighted the fact that this will mean £171,000 extra for a charity—not a big one—which is struggling. When I was Health Minister in Scotland a million years ago, I introduced pound-for-pound funding for hospices, whereby the Government would match the funding raised by the hospices. That was hugely successful but subsequently repealed by the Scottish Parliament when it came into action. Hospices are organisations that we should be supporting. We should not be thinking of new taxes on the people that they have to employ, although of course they benefit from many volunteers.
The whole Bill is deeply misguided and, as the noble Lord pointed out, will have a devastating effect, not just on private providers but on all providers and charities. I remind the noble Lord that had we had his excellent amendment on the Floor of the House, we could have divided on it and sought the opinion of the whole House, but because we are put in here, we are unable to do so. That is a great disservice. Of course, it means that the Liberals—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Well, I am not so sure about the “democrat”, but they are certainly called Liberal Democrats. They will be able to say, “We raised your concerns”, but they raised our concerns in a way that made it difficult to have the rules of engagement that would enable us to refine those amendments in Committee.
I hope that in considering his amendment, the noble Lord, if he takes it a stage further—I do not anticipate that the Government will accept it—may take account of the concern that it is not just about the public sector but the private sector. Bear in mind that this is just one measure on top of others—the increase in the minimum wage and the employment rights legislation—that will make it much more difficult for people to be flexible in their labour arrangements. All these things together are crushing these important public service organisations.
I support the amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord might think further on the contribution made by those private providers providing services to people who pay from their own pockets.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My amendment, in proposed new subsection (1B), says:
“A ‘specified employer’ means … a person providing a care home service”
under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. So that will cover a private care home, not just a public sector care home. Would the noble Lord agree?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I would agree, but it would not provide for the costs of private patients, who are already paying over and above the odds because of the local authorities. I am not criticising the local authorities—in fairness to them, they simply do not have the money. More than three-quarters of councils’ budgets are going on social care, and the costs are going up. This is extending the cost, and therefore it will mean a greater burden on those people paying out of their own pockets.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
When the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised the issue of our meeting in Grand Committee—when the proposal was being discussed—and argued that votes could not be taken, I intervened and said that he was incorrect because I had won a vote in a Grand Committee many years ago. After a little research, I discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was right and I was wrong. The reason is that the Committee in which I won a vote was a Special Public Bill Committee. For those of your Lordships who have not encountered such a thing, a Special Public Bill Committee is exactly the same as a Grand Committee, except you have votes. It is designed to deal with Law Commission Bills. I apologise to the Committee for that error, and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Lord was kind enough to write to me and apologise, and we always very much respect the courteous way in which he handles debates in our House.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
That is very kind.
I turn to the amendment. One of the major failings of the UK tax system is its complexity. That complexity is a major source of tax avoidance—that is, the use of legal loopholes, often in ways totally unintended by the policymaker—to avoid tax. The real problem is the large number of exemptions—exemptions which riddle our taxation system and make it so susceptible to tax avoidance.
Increasing exemptions to a particular tax is the wrong way to deal with the perhaps real problems described by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Forsyth. The right way is for the Government to target direct subsidy to those services that they wish to have funded. These proposals increase the number of exemptions in the tax system. I can assure the proposers that they will be gamed and will result in tax avoidance, which is totally outwith the intention of the proposers of the amendments. Several other amendments would also add exemptions to the tax system. We should not do it. It makes our tax system worse and more complex and it increases avoidance. The approach embodied in the amendments is a very bad idea.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, does not the Bill itself extend extensions, by changing the secondary threshold for class 1 contributions?
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
I agree, but adding more exemptions is adding to the pile. What we desperately need is a reform of our tax system that removes exemptions and forces Governments to make policy by deciding which goods and services they are going to subsidise.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on simplification of the tax system; indeed, I have made many speeches on that subject in the past. I also agree that as a matter of principle it is not good to layer exemptions on to any taxes, but we have to see here that the Government have chosen to use a very blunt instrument to raise taxes, so we are faced with a problem. Do we just accept this blunt instrument bludgeoning whole sectors of our community or do we try to make it a bit better? I think that, on grounds of public policy, it is reasonable to make exceptions in order to ameliorate the effect of a dangerously wide imposition of these additional taxes on employment.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the easiest way to avoid exemptions would be not to raise this tax at all; then we would not have to deal with the sectors that will be hit hard by it. I very much support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and I hope that it will come to a vote on Report, so that we can all support it. As other noble Lords have said, I particularly want to extend that to other charities, which I think are covered by Amendment 5 in this group.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
In that case, I will address that amendment when we come to it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for tabling these amendments and others who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lord Randall, who supported the amendments highlighting the damage to smaller businesses. I very much share his view.
This has been an interesting discussion and it has brought out how unjust the proposals in the Budget for national insurance were. The amendment rightly draws attention to the problems created across the health sector, all of which we will discuss again in detail on other groups. “Stark” was the rather good word used by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. As we heard at Second Reading, there are appalling consequences for those dealing with some of the most tragic services, including hospices and the transport of those with special educational needs. There will also be an immense strain on care homes, GPs, dentists and pharmacies—mostly small operations employing a number of part-time and low-paid staff. That will seriously impact on the health of the NHS.
What is so unfair is that the public sector is being compensated for the extra costs. That is in contrast to those carrying out public good in the private sector, which, incidentally, we know is more productive. For example, I have been amazed by the industry of family-run pharmacies, which helped so much during Covid and are asked to do more and more year by year. They are having to deal with the treble whammy of NICs, the national minimum wage rises—especially for the young—and the prospect of the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s proposals for new employment legislation.
As I highlighted at Second Reading, many in the health sector say that they will be forced to reduce services and limit headcount. For example, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about the increased cost of social care faced by the independent care providers—I think he talked about £900 million; I had a figure of £940 million—which simply dwarfs the £600 million support rightly included in the Budget to help the sector. If the Government recognise that this tax is not sustainable for the public sector, why are they unable to apply that same logic to sectors that provide public services? These are not big businesses. They provide a critical service for the people and, if they are unable to do so, that will add to the pressure on the NHS. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, gave a good example of the Cyrenians in Scotland and my noble friend Lord Forsyth rightly mentioned hospices, as I think everybody will do throughout this Committee.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Before my noble friend leaves this figure of £940 million for social care, something like one in seven of the beds in the NHS are occupied by people who are well and who could be discharged. If we are going to add a burden to the social care sector, that £940 million does not take account of the cost to the NHS of those beds being occupied by people who would otherwise be able to be in their own homes, not just saving the taxpayer money but also hugely improving their quality of life. So the £940 million —or the £900 million, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—is a gross underestimate of the real costs that are being imposed by this policy, is it not?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My noble friend makes an excellent point. It is a question of the dynamics. I know, having once been a Treasury Minister, that dynamics always worry it. But the fact of the matter is that, if we can get things done and get people out of hospital quicker, as my noble friend suggests, that would make a real difference.
I feel that the proposals that we are faced with for hard-working businesspeople and for social enterprises are a huge slap in the face. They are being discussed on a day when unemployment is rising and job opportunities are falling. I believe that that reflects the impact of the £23.8 billion hit on employers’ national insurance. It is a veritable jobs tax and the gloom that the Government have admitted for the first six months of their tenure has not helped. That is why my noble friend Lord Forsyth was right to regret that we were debating this not on the Floor of the House but in Grand Committee. I hope that none the less we will attempt to give the Bill proper scrutiny here, because if we do not, that would be a big failing.
In that respect, one of the things that annoys me most is the lack of a proper impact assessment. We have a very inadequate impact note, which was published on 13 November. That gives a run of the yield to the Exchequer year by year but does not break it down into the three categories: the costs of the increase to 15%, the lowering of the threshold, which is extremely regressive, and the welcome benefit from the rise in the employment allowance—and indeed anything else included in the figure of £23.8 billion, which was by far the biggest change in the Budget and which is why so many people are here today worrying about the Bill.
There is also an unexpected dynamic effect highlighted by the OBR, which means that, following the reduction in wages, profits and employment, this tax will raise over £5 billion less than the Treasury forecast, raising £18.3 billion in 2025-26 and nearly £10 billion less than the forecast in 2026-27. So there is a great deal of pain for wealth creators and effective employers, but not a lot of gain.
I cannot see how we can scrutinise the Bill without proper impact information, and I look forward to a proper discussion during the debate on Amendment 13. However, I think the Committee would also like to have authoritative, disaggregated figures on the impact on the health and care sectors under discussion today. That is why I am raising this now, and I hope the Minister will consider what he can do to assist the Committee so that we can have proper understanding and proper scrutiny. We want to do the right thing here.
It is against that sombre background that I shall speak to my Amendments 38 and 42, which have been grouped with this amendment. They seek to increase the employment allowance in the primary care sector. My purpose is to probe the Government’s openness to helping the sector a bit more through an increase. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the facts. The BMA has said that, as public authorities, they are unable to access support via the increased allowance and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made a similar point in relation to dentists. The Committee needs to know whether that is true.
Mine is a probing amendment and the first of several relating to Clause 3. To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, as someone who has tried to reform taxes in the past, originally with the help of my noble friend Lord Heseltine as part of the deregulation initiative, it is very difficult to get simplification of the tax system. That is one reason why I have tabled an amendment relating to the employment allowance, because it comes at the matter in a different way.
Primary care is vital to the Government’s plans to improve the NHS. My fear is that the NICs changes, especially the lowering of the threshold and with part-time working so common in primary care, will lead to further problems in GP surgeries, increasing chronic conditions and waiting times for appointments across the NHS, and having the perverse effect that I think we will come back to as this Committee progresses.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on this first group of amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so far. It is also a pleasure to see so many noble Lords in the Grand Committee. I know that some noble Lords are unhappy about being here, but the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, in particular, and I know what it feels like to be in this Grand Committee on our own, so it is, at least, I have to say, nice to be popular.
Before I address each of the amendments in this group, I shall very briefly set out at the outset the context in which the Budget decisions contained in the Bill were taken. I would like to do so since this context is why we are here today and underpins the debates that we will have, not just on this group of amendments, but on all further groups. As noble Lords will know, the Government inherited three distinct challenges: the need to repair the public finances; the need to rebuild public services; and the need to protect working people.
The most pressing of these challenges was the need to repair the £22 billion black hole in the public finances as a result of a series of commitments made by the previous Government which they did not fund. The previous Government also made no provision for costs that they knew would materialise, including £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal and £1.8 billion to compensate victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal. These pressures have to be funded, and it falls to this Government to do so.
Noble Lords will also know that the country inherited acute problems in public services, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in Portakabins as school roofs crumbled around them and rivers filled with polluted waste. Yet since 2021, there had been no spending review and no detailed plans for departmental spending were set out for beyond this year. Working people had also lived through a cost-of-living crisis, with inflation peaking at 11.1% and remaining above target for 33 consecutive months. Combined with the previous Government’s decision to freeze income tax thresholds—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I am. I said that I wanted to set out some context at the outset. I know that the noble Baroness may not like that context, but it is why we are here today, after all.
That meant taking some very difficult decisions on welfare, spending and tax, including those in the Bill. I recognise that this involves asking some businesses to contribute more and that the impacts of the Bill will be felt beyond businesses. These are difficult decisions—not ones we wanted to take—and I understand and respect the very legitimate concerns that have been raised, both during today’s debate and outside this House. Crucially, however, and I may find myself making this point repeatedly during these debates, noble Lords who oppose the measures in the Bill must be clear. Do they propose instead more borrowing, lower spending or alternative tax-raising measures? That is the key question at the heart of these debates.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
If the noble Lord is going to make a Second Reading speech on an amendment, is it okay if we all do the same thing?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think the noble Lord did in his contribution; I remember him raising the minimum wage, for example. I do not think that is directly related to the amendment. We are all absolutely entitled to set out some contextual points in the points that we raise.
Let me turn directly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which seek to exclude care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists, NHS-commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care, and those providing hospice care, from the new rate and threshold for employer national insurance. I say at the outset that I have listened very carefully to the points raised by all noble Lords during these debates and taken on board what has been said.
As I said, the difficult decisions the Government took in the Budget last year, including those in the Bill, were necessary to repair the public finances, protect working people and rebuild our public services. As a result of the measures in the Bill and wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. This investment is dependent on the Bill.
As noble Lords will know, the Government have already set out that they will provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance costs. But independent contractors, including primary care providers, social care providers, charities, including hospices, and nurseries will not be supported with the costs from these changes. This follows the precedent for such national insurance measures. It is exactly the same as was the case with changes to employer national insurance rates under the previous Government’s plan for the health and social care levy.
Primary care providers—in general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eye care—are important independent contractors, who provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult each sector about what services it provides and what money it is entitled to in return under its contract. As in previous years, the issues we are debating today will be dealt with as part of that process.
The Government have announced a proposed £889 million uplift for general practice in 2025-26 and have set out the proposed areas of reform that will help us to deliver on our manifesto commitments. This is the largest uplift to GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework; it means that we are reversing a recent trend, with a rising share of total NHS resources going to general practice. We have started consulting the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association on the 2025-26 GP contract in England. We will consider a range of proposed policy changes. These will be announced in the usual way, following the close of the consultation later this year.
Turning to adult social care, the Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care. This funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector. Finally, we are also supporting the hospice sector, with a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million of revenue to support children and young people’s hospices.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeking to increase the employment allowance for employers in the primary care sector and for dental practices. Currently, small businesses with national insurance bills of £100,000 or less receive a £5,000 employment allowance, which means that they can deduct £5,000 from the total national insurance they pay on their employees’ wages. Under the proposals in the Bill, the employment allowance will increase to £10,500 from April 2025.
The Bill also expands the employment allowance to all eligible employers by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold. This will simplify and reform employer national insurance contributions so that all eligible employers now benefit. Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors, including just the primary care sector and dental practices, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, would add additional complexity to the tax system and would be incoherent, given the wider changes to simplify the employment allowance made in the Bill.
These changes would also create additional costs. How would these additional costs be met—through more borrowing, lower public spending or additional revenue-raising measures? If so, where would these additional taxes fall? If the Government were unable to meet these additional costs, we would be unable to provide the extra £22.6 billion for the NHS.
In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I asked a question which, in relation to dentists, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. It was about the definition of “public authorities” and how that affects payment of the employment allowance. I raised it at Second Reading as well. It would be helpful to have a judgment on that point.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The definition is set as it was previously. We have no intention of changing that definition.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
To be clear, that means these bodies will not have access to the employment allowance if they are public authorities. It would be helpful to know what the costings of that look like. I know that the Minister does not want to make any changes, but we are trying to understand what the numbers are here and in some minor areas, such as hospices. The Minister says that hospices will have extra money, but they will also have to pay a lot extra in national insurance. We are trying to understand all that to give him helpful feedback on the Bill; obviously, we are as keen as he is for it to succeed.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I would be very happy to look into the specific point made by the noble Baroness. I will feed back in my responses on a subsequent group.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate—no more fascinating than my thinking I was in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, until he started arguing why he did not support me. I do not feel that I have to resign from my Front-Bench position, for which I thank the noble Lord.
I have listened carefully. I believe that, regardless of which side of the Grand Committee noble Lords are on, everyone is agreed that the Bill will have consequences, both for health and social care providers and, through them, for the people who receive such services. I note that the Minister said that he had listened very carefully; I am sure that the sector and providers, who are listening carefully to this debate, will have noticed that he did not come up with any solutions to the problems they now face, such as the cuts to staff and services that they will have to make.
I also note that, in his response, the Minister did not refer to community pharmacists’ contract negotiations, which have been on hold for this financial year since the general election. They are still dealing with a lack of contract and uplift for this year, regardless of the uplift and extra costs that will come next year. As a former NHS manager, I know that the flaw in the Minister’s response about this measure being part of contract negotiations is that everything gets bundled into contract negotiations—not just this year’s pressures but the extra services that the Government will look to provide. Therefore, this amount of money will not be covered and the Government’s decision will create both pressures on and gaps in existing services.
I appreciate that the Minister gave the context, which is important, but it is the Government’s decision on how to deal with that context and the taxes that they decided to raise against these providers that are causing the problem. This is a government issue that will not go away and will put pressures on services; that is why, even though I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, believe that we will come back to this issue on Report. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, supporting a vote then.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A2) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the veterans secondary percentage;”(A3) After section 9A insert—“9AA Veterans secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a veteran.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab), the veterans secondary percentage is 13.8%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “veteran” means a former member of any of His Majesty’s forces.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exempt veterans’ salaries from NICs changes.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I will also speak to Amendments 17 and 20 in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Kramer and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I was not able to speak at Second Reading. The Grand Committee will be delighted to know that I do not intend to give a Second Reading speech, even though there appears to be a precedent this afternoon. Nor will I talk about the quantum of £X billion, although I will briefly explain why I was not at Second Reading.
I realise that it is not necessary to apologise, but I was detained up north waiting for a meeting associated with my father’s discharge from care, without which the NHS is paying for his care in a care home and has now done so for three months. Until it and social services are able to come to a resolution, the NHS is paying for his care, rather than either the local authority or, indeed, my father and his family. All the issues we heard about in the discussion on the first group of amendments are absolutely as acute as everybody said. We really need to deal with some of them, but whether they are best dealt with by increasing employers’ national insurance contributions I am not at all persuaded.
As we heard in the previous group, this is a tax on jobs. In concluding the group, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said something about our wishing this legislation through or hoping to see it pass. I am not looking forward to seeing this legislation pass, because it is undoubtedly a tax on jobs, and it is not clear how it will help growth or any of the ambitions that His Majesty’s Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think are necessary for our economy to improve.
There is a serious issue at the moment. The specific issue on which my group of amendments focuses is veterans. I am aware that that sounds even more niche than health and social care or the voluntary sector, and that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, will be poised to jump up to say that this just adds yet more complexity. Why does a Liberal Democrat appear to be simply finding a way of adding to the complexity of the tax base? There are two reasons.
One is that the Government and this country have a commitment to our veterans, as part of the Armed Forces community. We have a very clear commitment to supporting our veterans, in particular by getting them back into work. As tabled, this set of amendments is rather broad and I am aware that if we were on Report, I would not have amendments quite as broad as they are at present. The detail of the amendment is, in form and structure, identical to that of those for health and social care and all the other Liberal Democrat groups of amendments, where we are essentially saying that we should keep the threshold and the percentages as they are, rather than increase the thresholds and tax rates.
The issue with veterans is that people who leave our Armed Forces are highly skilled and capable, yet not always seen as the most obvious people to employ. Larger employers may do so but it is not inevitable. A report by the Federation of Small Businesses back in 2019, A Force for Business, clearly highlighted the importance of bringing veterans back into the workforce. Its commitments to bringing veterans back into the workforce built on a report that highlighted that 12% of small businesses had employed veterans in the previous three years, and about 20% of manufacturers. It is important for veterans to be employed, but it is also important for small businesses to be able to employ them.
On the back of those proposals and the report from the Federation of Small Businesses, under the previous Government, as of the tax year April 2021-22, there was an exemption for newly employed veterans: not for all Armed Forces veterans, as the current amendments talk about, but for those who were in their first job after leaving the Armed Forces, however long the period between leaving the Armed Forces and having their first civilian job might have been.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I did not say I wanted the Bill to go through. I agree that that it is a jobs tax, as the noble Baroness said. What I accept is that the Government have a large majority in the other House, and what I am trying to do in this House is to have a proper discussion on the Bill with a view, perhaps, to amending it and persuading the Government that they have made some mistakes and that we can improve the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The noble Baroness is trying to encourage the Liberal Democrats to be in agreement with the Conservatives, rather as her noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested at one point that he was in favour of the amendment from my noble friend Lord Scriven. We need to be a little bit careful not to agree with each other too often. But she is absolutely right. The Government have a large majority in the other place and it is not the business of this House to go against the Salisbury/Addison convention. However, I do not remember this being a manifesto commitment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I find myself again being somewhat like a bully standing behind the Lib Dems urging them on. But, of course, they are not bullying but providing a good service. I should also say, with regards to this Lib Dem-Conservative coalition, I was actually Deputy Chief Whip during the coalition period and I have to say that the Lib Dems, certainly in the Whips’ Office, were extremely good partners and very sensible. So I have great sympathy for the amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith or Newnham, for her speech and express sympathy for the situation she finds herself in with her father. We all will have sympathy, even if we have not gone through similar things ourselves. As with the previous group, I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said what he did, and I would prefer that we did not have all these exemptions. But the fact is that there are exemptions. That is what happens. I also say that, with regard to the veterans, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, has done us a great service in showing how many different sectors can be affected by this.
We all have a debt of gratitude to veterans. If there was an exemption, as put down in the amendment, that might be an inducement for employers to hire those people. There could be no greater service to those people, who have given everything. As the noble Baroness said, they are very skilled and have a lot to offer. One could go on down the exemption line, but I do not want to incur the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, any further. One could apply this to people who have come out of prison, because we want to encourage rehabilitation, and so forth.
However, the point is—here I reiterate—that there must be alternative ways of raising this tax. I have not got them. I could, probably, upset most people in Committee today by saying that we should perhaps have looked at introducing national insurance contributions for those over the pension age. There may be quite a few people who would come into that category who could well afford it. There again, however, I will have to watch my back on the Metropolitan line on my way home today, in case I am taken out by a couple of sticks and so forth.
I understand the difficulties the Government face, but I reiterate that we are having a deleterious effect on some vulnerable sectors—we have not got on to charities yet, so I will hold my fire on that. However, this is something we should be taking very seriously.
With regard to the point about the large majority in the Commons, there is part of me—not the nice part or the Deputy Chief Whip part—that would be very keen to see some Labour Members vote against measures that will affect their local charities and veterans, and so on. We should do a service to the gallant men and women who have taken this up in the other place by making their lives a little easier.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this is such a contrast to previous years’ versions of this debate, when there would be myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, sat over there, and a handful on this side. It is really quite enjoyable to have a debate like this, but whether it is actually productive in any way I am not sure.
The problem we have is that veterans are like motherhood and apple pie. How can anyone oppose measures to assist veterans? Well, I can. There is a strange sense of déjà vu, because we had this debate in this Room two or three years ago when the last Government put forward proposals to exempt veterans. I cannot remember the details—you cannot remember everything we talk about here. However, we had the debate and discussion, and I expressed reservations about special measures for veterans. Do we have any information about what impact this has? I suspect it is a bit of tokenism.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords who have been referring to national insurance growth as a jobs tax have actually read the OBR assessment of the impact of the Budget on employment. If they have not, I will quote it here. It states:
“The … boost to output from this Budget reduces the unemployment rate by 0.3 percentage points, equivalent to around 90,000 people, on average in 2025 and 2026. Compared to our March forecast, the unemployment rate is lower across most of the forecast, but is in line with its unchanged estimated structural rate by the forecast horizon”.
Why is it that the OBR, having considered carefully the impact of the increase in national insurance, has told us that the level of unemployment is going to fall, in its estimation?
The reason was spelled out beautifully by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, at Second Reading. Perhaps nobody listened carefully to a distinguished professor of economics setting out why the characterisation of the national insurance rise as a jobs tax is seriously misleading in economic terms.
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I repeat the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. The cost to an employer of the increase in national insurance determines the choices that the employer will make with respect to the input of labour in the output that he or she can sell. The increase in national insurance will indeed tend to encourage employers to lower the labour input per unit of output: that is, it will increase productivity. The level of employment then depends on the amount of output.
The amount of output—the overall level of employment—is determined, as the OBR points out clearly in the piece I quoted, is determined by the overall fiscal balance, and this Budget injects £26 billion of extra spending into the economy. Therefore, the economies in employment made by individual employers are significantly offset by the overall level of demand in the economy, because it is that overall level that determines employment, not the individual decisions.
That is what Keynes taught us in 1936, which is why this characterisation of the national insurance charge as a jobs tax that will cause unemployment actually misses out the vital issue of what the revenues from the tax are used for. If they are used, as they are in this Budget, to increase expenditure, as my noble friend Lord Livermore pointed out in his scene-setting discussion, then employment may rise or fall depending on the fiscal balance—and the fiscal balance of this Budget, as the OBR points out, will reduce unemployment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
That is a very ingenious argument, and I hesitate to argue with such a distinguished economist, but just think of what the noble Lord said. He said that the increase in the labour cost as a result of this tax being imposed will force employers to improve productivity, and the way you improve productivity is by sacking the worker and replacing them with a machine, or AI or some other system. It is a bit of sophistry to suggest that it is not a jobs tax because it will only mean that some people will lose their jobs and that the improved productivity may have an effect. As for basing his argument on the predictions of the OBR, I think unemployment went up today.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
It did not. The level of employment went down, but unemployment is not measured by that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Indeed, but let us not get into that argument. What is the biggest problem facing the country? It is that more than 9 million people who are of working age and capable of working are not working. An argument that suggests that by making it more expensive to take people on, and then add to that—I am not making a Second Reading speech —employment protection, that this will not result in job losses and therefore is not a tax on employment is, even by the standards of great economists, stretching the argument too far. The consequence of this will be, as the noble Lord acknowledged, that some people will surely lose their jobs because employing them will become too expensive.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I just say, in relation to that and to the noble Lord’s arguments, that what he completely forgets is that manufacturing companies faced with this will simply move their production abroad. That is what he forgets.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Maybe I can be helpful by using the Library note on this occasion and a quote that it has from the OBR. The paragraph is headed “Labour supply”:
“The OBR expects workers and firms, respectively, may reduce labour supply and demand in response to lower wages and higher employer costs.”
That is a reference to these changes, including the NICs.
“It anticipates the measures in the bill may reduce labour supply by around 0.2%, or a little over 50,000 on an average-hours equivalent … basis, by 2029/30”.
Perhaps that quote about the OBR is helpful in the context of the conversation going on at the moment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the whole Committee has, I know, great respect for the immense knowledge and expertise in economics of both the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Layard. Laying out a theoretical argument about what happens to employment and demand in the economy is entirely valid, but it ignores what actually happens at the level of the individual enterprise, employer or employee.
In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talks about the impact on a specific group of employees. There is nothing in what the noble Lord had to say about the overall macroeconomic impact, which will affect the attractiveness of continuing to employ veterans if the cost of employing them is going to go up. In debating the previous group, we talked about whether community pharmacies could stay in business, given the additional costs that would arise for those businesses. We have to remember that this is not a highly theoretical exercise: the imposition of these massive national insurance changes is going to have a huge impact at the micro level. That is what we are trying to explore in many of the amendments we will look at in Committee, today and next week. They are not answered by theoretical answers at a macro level.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments surrounding the exemption of veterans’ salaries from this NI jobs tax; the lead amendment was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. This is a helpful group of amendments to remind us—just as my noble friend Lady Noakes has reminded us—that the social costs of this taxation initiative will fall on individuals. Although we talk about economics in an aggregate manner and debate it in the aggregate, there are social costs, and they are very real.
In the aggregate, the Treasury may do quite well from this rise because of wage inflation. Wage inflation is a tremendous friend to the Treasury and will more than make up for the gap that the noble Lord mentioned at the start, which is that we need to find other sources of revenue. Wage inflation is going to support the Government quite nicely through this, but that cuts both ways: obviously, it has an aggregate and fiscal benefit, but it hits hard because the cost of employment goes up a lot. There is a double effect and we are probably seeing that right now.
Putting aside the theory about whether we lose jobs in one place and offset them somewhere else, we know that we were down 50,000 jobs in December; the OBR number is an aggregate loss of 50,000 through this initiative. That is a tremendous estimate, of course—who is to say that it has any better insight than anybody else?—but it is already down by 50,000 in December. It is probably a combination of wage inflation and expected tax rises, but that is 50,000 people who are out of a job. As we look through these amendments, we might pause and reflect. Who are these vulnerable employees? Who is actually going to bear the social cost of this change?
These amendments perfectly encapsulate the problem, which is that these changes will fall on people who are, and have already been identified as, vulnerable in one form or another. Observations about tax complexity may have been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell and, by the way, it is not just tax avoidance that is a burden to the economy. Tax compliance is a burden to the economy, as all forms of taxation in this country have become very complex and are a tremendous drag on the economy as things stand. However, that is how we manage our affairs.
While we look at this issue, we might pause and think about where the costs fall on individuals—in this case, on veterans. The previous Conservative Government ensured that veterans were a priority. They guaranteed that the funding was sufficient to support veterans in securing highly paid and skilled employment in key sectors across our economy, utilising the skills that they developed in the military.
In April 2024, veteran employment was at an all-time high of 89% owing to various initiatives, including the 12-month national insurance relief for employers hiring a veteran into their first role out of military service. This tax incentive was highly beneficial for veterans and business. Following its introduction in 2022, this relief was extended in 2023 and again in the following year, 2024. Following the Government’s decision to impact business through this tax decision, will the Minister at least confirm that they intend to continue this business relief to ensure that our veterans are able to find employment after their service and that businesses are able to benefit from their unique skills and experience?
Our military deserve the utmost respect for the service they provide to our country and, as such, the veterans deserve that same level of respect. This tax will be harmful to these people, and if the Government are unwilling to exempt them, at the very least they must explain how they have arrived at the conclusion that it will not be exceptionally detrimental to the employment rate of veterans.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which seek to exempt veteran salaries from the employer national insurance changes. These amendments would create a different employer national insurance rate and threshold set at the current levels for salaries of veterans. The Government of course recognise the huge contributions made by the UK Armed Forces and veterans in this country, and I completely understand the intention behind these amendments.
As some noble Lords have mentioned, there is already an employer national insurance relief available for the earnings of veterans, meaning that employers are not required to pay any national insurance contributions up to £50,270 for the first year of civilian employment. At the Budget, the Government decided to extend the national insurance contributions relief for employers who hire veterans to support veterans in their first year of civilian employment for a further year. Despite the challenging fiscal inheritance this Government face, this means we are maintaining this relief and it is not changing as a result of this Bill.
Further to this, we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities either gain or see no change next year. Businesses and charities will still be able to claim employer national insurance reliefs, including those for under-21s and under-25 apprentices, where eligible.
On veterans more widely, this Government have taken action to demonstrate our commitment to renew this nation’s contract with those who have served. We have awarded £3.7 million in veterans housing grants, veterans will be exempt from the local connection test for social housing in England and veteran cards are now accepted ID for elections. We are progressing veterans support programmes at pace, including a centralised referral pathway designed to support veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, an NHS mental health specialist service designed to help veterans and their families in England and an NHS physical health specialist service designed to help veterans and their families in England.
Before I sit down, I shall also address the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about dentists, which I was unable to answer during the debate on the previous group. As I said, the criteria have not changed, including the exclusion of those doing 50% of their work in the public sector. The eligibility is down to individual businesses, and the proportion of their work in the public sector may vary year to year. All charities can claim, including hospices.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My point was in relation to the points made by the BMA and the dentists. There are two separate points. It is not in this group, but it might be as well to have a discussion on this so that we can be clear about this and on the impact on these important areas for the future of health in the NHS.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
Can the Minister clarify something? I understood that the national insurance contributions relief for veterans had been extended for one year and that this Bill was not going to affect veterans. Surely at some point it cuts out. Is that correct, so that this would be valid only up to 2026?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, set out in his speech that it was extended year by year under the previous Government. This Government have done the same thing and have extended it for a further year.
On the basis of what I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the group, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A2) In section 9(1A), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the part-time worker secondary percentage;”(A3) After section 9A insert— “9AA Part-time worker secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a part-time worker.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab), the part-time worker secondary percentage is 7.5%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “part-time worker” has the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets a new National Insurance Contributions rate for part-time workers.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group are in my name. They break, essentially, into two parts. Amendments 3 and 12 relate to national insurance contribution rates for part-time workers. They are not a request for an exemption from the change but would establish a new rate for part-time workers of 7.5%, so this is a far more aggressive pair of amendments than those we discussed in previous groupings. Amendments 58, 59 and 60 are all about reviews. If I may, I will discuss part-time work first and then look at the reviews, to try to provide some clarity.
Why have we taken a more aggressive position as we look at the situation of part-time workers? It is because we think that we now need to focus on the most disadvantaged, who are finding work difficult to obtain and finding it hardest to earn in a reasonable way to promote their standard of living. We think that part-time workers need to be viewed through a different lens. Traditionally, they have been an add-on side group, and I think that in some people’s minds there is still the idea that people who work part-time either work for pin money or are extremely well paid and need to work only a limited number of hours. That is not the character of part-time work as it is today, and we want this special category to be identified and recognised.
Under the changes to the thresholds in the Bill, in many cases part-time work will be brought into employer NICs for the first time. Currently, a person could typically work 14 hours a week without incurring employer NICs, but that will be reduced to approximately eight hours. It is a dramatic difference. Very few people will be working fewer than eight hours in any meaningful way.
The number of people who engage in part-time work has grown significantly. Today, there are about 8.5 million people. That set of people is overwhelmingly made up of those who carry with them some recognised disadvantage: people with health issues, be they mental or physical; people with caring responsibilities who are trying to improve the family income, as well as get out of the house to some degree; and people recovering from periods of unemployment and trying to rebuild their confidence and work credentials.
For many young people, part-time work is the entry point. Some of them are students who could not remain in education if they did not have part-time work to go along with it, but it is also increasingly becoming a route to the first job and to getting some sort of credentials that will give you the ability to go on and develop a career in full-time work. With this growing sector, we are changing as a society and using part-time work far more.
The Government will be very aware that, as they look at their growth agenda, one of their primary goals is to get older people who have become economically inactive—typically, those aged over 50—back to work. I suggest that part-time work is by far the most likely route for those individuals, so making that attractive, and making them attractive to employers, who may not have thought of employing somebody older who will therefore retire in a certain number of years, may well be a very important part of that strategy.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 3, 12 and 59, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests as an investor in SMEs, including those employing part-time workers.
In the interests of economic growth and especially flexibility in the labour market, which is so crucial for sectors such as hospitality and retail, the time has come, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to aggressively restructure an employer’s NICs scheme rather than subject all employers to one set rate of contributions and, indeed, thresholds, on which I will speak later in group five. Indeed, by dropping the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000, Clause 2 is disproportionately hitting employers who, frankly, have no choice but to employ part-time workers, often on a shift basis. Without introducing a lower secondary percentage, such as the 7.5% proposed in Amendment 3, part-time work will be on the retreat, hitting those very workers who are dependent on such employment and who cannot work full-time, including students, parents and family carers.
As we have heard, the numbers published today of payrolled employees have dropped by 47,000 during December alone. That is the biggest fall since November 2020. It would be interesting to receive a breakdown of those figures and to see how many of those departing roles were part-time employees. It would be equally interesting to see whether the OBR will revise its forecast.
The NI threshold cliff edge discriminates against part-time jobs, raising costs disproportionately for sectors already having to absorb huge increases in the national minimum wage. It does not fit with the world of flexible, part-time or temporary labour. Remember, we are talking about 8.4 million people who are part-time employed. That is one quarter of our workforce. Amendments 3 and 12 would go some way to softening the blow of the new threshold cliff edge contained in Clause 2 and help protect these vital jobs, let alone the working people.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. But again, to dwell on the coalition, she and I served in the same Government, so agreeing with her is not unusual for me.
I wanted to make a brief point. Both previous speakers highlighted the impact on the hospitality industry. The figures are quite startling. There will be an impact of about £1 billion on the industry itself, thereby impacting 750,000 workers. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, the impacts of this are already being felt by an industry which is already challenged. We should look at this again. Perhaps in a later group when we talk about the importance of impact assessments it will again be underlined that we do not just need reviews. Doing the work beforehand, consulting and working with the industry is an essential prerequisite to ensure that these changes are not detrimental and lead to a depression of growth, which I know ultimately was not the intention of the Government, as they stated.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, usually I have a lot of sympathy and respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Londesborough. However, on this occasion I am going to disagree, first, because if you cut tax in one area, you are only going to have to raise it somewhere else. It might benefit the hospitality industry, but some other industry is going to suffer as a consequence.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I will try to be extremely brief because no doubt I will be interrupted again. The point I was making was that if you cut tax in one area, you are going to have to raise it somewhere else. That is always problematic.
There are two other reasons why I have some reservations about this amendment. First, it is often thought—the Financial Secretary will remember this because we worked together on measures in the early 2000s—that part-time workers are poor. However, if you look at the poverty statistics, many part-time workers live in quite affluent households. My point is that as a measure to target people on low income, this is a very blunt instrument. It is far better to target them through tax credits, or universal credit as it is now called.
My final points relates to having worked on national insurance over three decades or more and is about the danger of creating steps in the system. I remember large numbers of workers bunching below the lower earnings limit, which was totally understandable as it was in their interest and their employer’s interest. By creating steps in the system, you discourage people from moving up the earnings ladder. In the short term, I could understand that cutting national insurance for the self-employed would genuinely incentivise the employment of part-time workers, but once in place, over time the existence of the step would trap many workers in this part-time zone because their employers would not want them to cross the step that resulted in higher national insurance. I warn against targeted measures such as this as they tend to cause difficulty and disappointment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is not in his place and associate myself with the request for some information about Scotland.
The amendments address a matter of real importance, which is the impact of the measures on part-time and seasonal workers, SMEs, hospitality and tourism. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right about the importance of part-time working in tourism, pubs, restaurants and events. That sector is sometimes neglected in public policy-making, but it is vital to growth.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, on growth, and indeed on the hospitality industry, it is particularly good to have the practical experience of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. I agree with him that it would be helpful to understand today’s employment decline a little better in the Committee.
According to the ONS, there are 8.4 million people working part-time in the UK, which is approximately one-quarter of the workforce. They work in large and small firms and include many young people, students and carers, as well as disproportionate numbers in hospitality, tourism and retail. I know from my days at Tesco how important part-time workers are to big employers as well as small employers, and, in particular, to 24/7 businesses—retail is a 24/7 business. That includes a lot of employment of elderly people. Also, as was said, part-time workers are not only the lowly paid—I had several part-time directors working for me—and good employers offer proper training to their part-time teams. It is an extremely important part of the economy.
While the rise in the national insurance rate to 15% will no doubt hit part-time workers, it is the huge reduction of the threshold to £5,000 from £9,100 that will have the most detrimental consequences for those who work part-time. It is yet another blow to the sector, alongside the increase in the minimum wage that comes into force in April.
As a result, a company that employs a part-time worker over the age of 21 who works just eight hours a week on the minimum wage—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said it was down from 14 hours a week —will be hit with this jobs tax for the first time, and the hospitality sector will be disproportionately affected. I think Kate Nicholls used the word “eye-watering”. The industry has warned that the measures announced in the Bill will cost it £1 billion overall. My noble friend Lord Ahmad quoted that figure as well. He is right about the adverse consequences of this and the need for consultation on such changes. How can you adjust your business model and be ready if you do not know what is coming?
It is really difficult for these companies. For the first time, they will have to pay tax on the wages of thousands of part-time hospitality workers. UKHospitality has estimated that a company employing a part-time worker doing 15 hours a week will see a 73% increase in its national insurance bill. It goes without saying that business will have to make tough decisions, as employing part-time workers is soon to become much more expensive. The trouble is that part-time work provides a flexible form of employment for so many—I have mentioned students and carers, but parents are also affected. It can be very useful in juggling what families do. These are people who rely on the flexibility of part-time contracts and might not otherwise be able to work at all.
Can the Minister tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of the effect of the changes enabled by the Bill on part-time workers? Perhaps he could also comment on the levels of employment within the hospitality sector and how he sees that panning out. How do the Government intend to support industries that will be most impacted by these changes to national insurance contributions? How can he give them hope and how can we be sure that they continue to play their part in growth? It is difficult and we need to try to find some comfort.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I apologise for speaking after the Tory Front Bench, but I thought the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was continuing after the voting break.
I will speak briefly in favour of Amendments 58 and 59. In doing that, perhaps I should declare an interest. I was on the board of the Fawcett Society in 2010 when it brought a judicial review against the emergency Budget of that year for its failure to honour its legal duty under the Equality Act to do with gender impact assessment. In that case, although Fawcett lost the overall case on legal grounds, it was said that the gender impact assessment requirements applied to the Budget and should have been carried out on a couple of aspects of that Budget.
With that in mind, I draw attention to the final page of the policy paper of 13 November, which I think we are regarding as an impact assessment. Under the heading “Equalities Impacts”, in this five-page document that my sub-editor’s eye tells me is in 16-point, it states:
“Secondary Class 1 NICs are levied on employers rather than individuals. There are therefore no direct equalities impacts”.
I would like to question the Minister on how it can be claimed that there are no equalities impacts. Some figures have already been raised, but I point out that 74% of part-time workers are female, 57% of involuntary part-time workers are female, 6 million women are working part time and 10 million women are working full time. According to the Resolution Foundation’s analysis of ONS data, 63% of UK workers under the £9,100 threshold are female. We are seeing national insurance charges increasing the cost of employment by nearly £700 a year for someone working 15 hours a week on the minimum wage. An additional 600,000 women workers are being brought within scope of national insurance. As others have said, on the minimum wage you need to work fewer than eight hours a week to stay below the new threshold.
Analysis of this has suggested that women workers are particularly affected by this change. Some of them may want to raise their hours, so this might turn out positive. Some of them may have caring responsibilities that mean that they cannot lift their hours and may then have to leave employment because they are being offered more or nothing. It is also worth pointing out that the Women’s Budget Group has highlighted how the overall impacts of the national insurance changes are likely significantly to increase childcare costs. That is of immediate relevance to working women with direct childcare responsibilities, but, as the Women’s Budget Group pointed out, there are also issues around grandparents, very likely grandmothers, who may find themselves being pushed, and feeling obligated, to leave employment so that they can take up childcare responsibilities. I do not think that that equalities impact can be justified and would appreciate the Minister’s comments.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will address the amendments and the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Londesborough. These seek to set a reduced rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers at 7.5%. As I have said before, the difficult decisions in the Bill were necessary to repair the public finances, protect working people and invest in Britain’s future. This amendment would reduce the revenue raised from the Bill and therefore prevent the Government achieving those objectives. In policy terms, reducing the rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers would create additional complexity in the tax system and distortions in the labour market.
The Government have taken action to support those on lower pay by increasing the national minimum wage, which I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, describe as a blow. I think that will be interesting to those on lower pay. We have also introduced important protections for workers as part of the plan to make work pay.
Employers will also continue to benefit from employer national insurance reliefs, including for hiring under-21 and under-25 apprentices, where eligible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also spoke about umbrella companies and mini umbrella companies. I will just note that the Government are committed to closing the tax gap and have announced, as part of the closing the tax gap package in the Budget, that we will bring forward measures to tackle non-compliance in the umbrella company market, including mini umbrella company fraud.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke specifically about equalities impacts. I can say that they were fully considered and we are confident that they are set out in the tax information impact note that she referred to.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, while no impact assessment is perfect, I think it is very difficult to call this note of 13 November detailed. The only numbers it gives are the global numbers, the £23.7 billion et cetera, and the run, and there are a few textual comments about equalities and things. What it does not do is even break down the costings into the different areas where different measures are being taken. It is not a detailed assessment; it is described, rightly, as an impact note. We will return to this, because we think that transparency and understanding the impact of policies is really helpful, including to His Majesty’s Government.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I feel that it would have been more sensible to take up residence in the Lobbies, but we have not done that. Another vote is expected imminently but, for now, I call the Minister.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, as I have said, the Government and the OBR have already set out the impacts of the policy change. The information provided is in line with the approach for other tax changes and the Government do not intend to publish additional assessments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, speaks again to her amendment, the Minister said that what the Government have provided is in line with what they did for other tax changes. I remind him that this is not a tax. The reason we are scrutinising this Bill is that it is not a tax; it is national insurance. I do not think that the Minister can run a line saying that, just because this Bill comes from the Treasury, the Treasury is allowed to produce whatever minimalist, large-font document, with no information in, that it wants. There is an obligation on government to produce impact assessments for major policy changes—and, my goodness me, this is a major policy change and I do not think we will be giving up this particular pursuit in Committee.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
HMRC has provided a tax information note, as it does for all similar policy changes. The Government have no intention of publishing additional assessments.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, just to confirm, does the Minister honestly feel that that note is sufficient, given the importance of the issue we are debating?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I believe that that note is in line with what we have done for similar policy changes.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I just want to say a quick word to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson—in a sense, the voice of the Treasury. This notion of part-time workers as very wealthy people who work only a few hours a week is totally dated. The collegiate group of part-time workers, if you like, is now hugely more varied and much more heavily represented by people in disadvantaged positions. We might have known that had we had a more effective impact assessment.
I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Minister, because I have been complaining for years—this involves the previous Government as well—about the inadequacy of impact assessments. As a former banker, if I had been presented with that document as a piece of analysis by somebody on a project that I was working on, that would have been the end of them working. We need to move to a world where we get proper information in an impact assessment. I do not think it would be to the Government’s disadvantage; it would lead to far better discussion because we would all be on much more secure ground.
With all that said, I am very pleased with the degree of discussion that we have had on an issue that is often overlooked. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Storey
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means—(a) a provider of education or childcare to children under five years of age—(i) registered in England in the early years register maintained by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills,(ii) registered in Wales with Care Inspectorate Wales, or(iii) registered in Scotland with the Scottish Care Inspectorate; or(b) a university.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that early years settings and universities would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I attended Second Reading but, as some noble Lords may have noticed, I was 90 seconds late and the Government Chief Whip said that I could not speak in the debate. I was quite disappointed by that, but never mind, here I am.
Nurseries have been struggling financially for more than 20 years, and the outcome of this struggle usually falls on parents in the form of increased fees. As Jess Phillips said, this NI increase will “undoubtedly” make this worse. This is supported by nursery spokespeople, who stress that the most likely outcome of this increase in NI is an increase in nursery fees. This is because the consequence of government-funded nursery places makes most nurseries ineligible for the employment allowance scheme, meaning that nurseries, which are already struggling to break even, cannot apply for discounted NI bills.
According to the qualifying criteria for the employment allowance scheme, if 50% of a non-charitable organisation’s work is determined as public work, and 50% of the organisation’s income comes from public funding, the organisation is designated a public body and therefore cannot claim employment allowance. Because of government-funded places in nurseries, many have become a public body under this policy, meaning that they are excluded from applying for the employment allowance.
The number of nurseries impacted by this is likely to increase as a result of increased government funding for nursery places. The Government are proposing to increase places by September 2025 so that any child of working parents earning less than £100,000 can receive 30 hours per week across 38 weeks between the ages of nine months and five years old. This will mean that around 70% to 80% of nursery places across the UK will be government-funded. As the number of funded nursery places increases, the larger a nursery’s public-funded income will be, removing them from employment allowance eligibility.
The chief executive officer of the Early Years Alliance, Nick Leitch, summarised this problem:
“Early years providers are stuck between a rock and a hard place”.
If nurseries do not accept government funding for free nursery places, they lose a huge proportion of their income. If nurseries do accept this funding, they lose a huge proportion of their income on NI bills.
The Government have yet to estimate how many early years providers will be eligible for the employment allowance when NI charges come in in April 2025, and there has been no explicit response from the Government about how they will support nurseries through this increase in NI costs.
In a speech on 17 December about the proposed changes in the Bill, James Murray, the Exchequer Secretary, commented only on the Government’s pledges to increase government-funded childcare places. He reassured that there will be a rise in funding for these places to “over £8 billion” but did not address the implications that the NI increase will have on these nurseries. Repeated throughout his speech was the lifeline that the employment allowance scheme will provide for many organisations, but overlooked was the exclusion of most nurseries from this scheme because of government-funded places. Currently, the likely solution for nurseries is to either increase fees or decrease the number of government-funded places they accept.
Neither is a good outcome for increasing access to early care for parents or for children. Nurseries do not have to accept government funding, and if they did not, they could apply for a decrease in NI bills from the employment allowance scheme. Many nurseries do not want to do this because of the income that government-funded places provide. It is also worth noting that currently, even with government-funded places, most nurseries barely break even. The most likely solution is therefore increased fees, so hard-pressed parents will have to shoulder the burden. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey, which proposes to exempt universities from the NIC increase, among other things. I will speak to that exemption for universities. I am grateful for the extensive briefing provided by UUK, and I declare an interest as a member of council at UCL.
Even before the NIC increases proposed by the Bill, our university sector was in deep financial trouble. Funding per student has fallen to its lowest real level for 25 years and, because of an ongoing inability to recover the full economic cost of research—partly the fault of government—universities lost £5.3 billion on their research activities last year. A decline in overseas student numbers has made the financial problems worse. In the year ending last September, the number of visas issued to foreign students fell by 19% on the previous year, while the decline at master’s level was 25%.
All this has produced a situation where many universities face urgent and very serious financial problems. The OfS’s latest modelling suggests that 72% of our universities could be in deficit by 2025-26. It is not as though there are widespread reserves available to smooth the problem. In fact, 40% of our universities are predicted to have fewer than a month’s cash by the end of the next academic year. The proposed employers’ NIC rise will make an already fragile system more fragile and more precarious. The universities will have to find £372 million to fund this increase. There is a risk of real and hard-to-reverse damage to our higher education sector.
There has already been extensive media speculation about breaches of covenant, reluctance of lenders to lend, and even insolvencies. This sector is of critical importance to our future and to our prospects for growth. AI is an example. We are well placed to be world leaders because of our research and our research standing. But if we want to fulfil the Prime Minister’s aspirations, we need a healthy and sustainably funded university sector with strong connections to business. The higher education sector is critical in its liaisons with business and in its generation of spin-offs, start-ups and social enterprises, as well as in the generation of IP and in providing key public service workers. Every year, our universities train over 100,000 public service workers: around 42,000 nurses, 21,000 medics and 38,000 teachers. The total economic impact of the sector has been estimated at over £265 billion. This impact is widely spread around the country, not just confined to our largest cities and oldest universities.
In very many of our towns and cities, our universities are engines of growth and critically important supporters of the local economy. It is true in general that our universities are of exceptionally high quality and standing. According to the last QS survey, here in the UK we have four out of the world’s top 10 universities and 16 out of the top 100. These are astonishing figures and an astonishing advantage to be leveraged to help produce the growth we need. The figures demonstrate our international standing and our success in education and research, and this standing boosts our soft power. The HEPI 2024 soft-power index found that 58 serving world leaders received their higher education here in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps it is in research that our universities most obviously display their world-class quality and reach, but this kind of quality and reach is under severe financial pressures and increasing global competition. Our current financial arrangements rely on a high—disproportionately high—cross-subsidy from overseas students, which is an obviously unstable element in today’s geopolitical world.
If we want our international standing to remain at the highest levels, and our universities to continue to be engines of growth, then we need very urgently to do something about our funding system. What we do not need is to impose additional costs on an already overstressed system. We also should not discourage overseas students from coming to the UK, as the previous Government did. These students contribute at least £37 billion to the UK economy. That is important, but it is obviously not a substitute for sustainable funding. Increasing employers’ NIC will not help with any of that and may, in some cases, push some universities to the financial brink.
The Minister will be aware of the financial dangers faced by our higher education sector. He will be aware of the conversations in Whitehall and elsewhere about how to reform our funding system and of the urgency of producing a stable and sustainable funding system. He will also know that the employers’ NIC increase will damage universities’ finances, at least until we have a better funding system. The additional funds raised will be relatively small from a Treasury perspective, but relatively and dangerously large from the sector’s perspective.
Applying the NIC increases to our world-leading higher education system will inevitably damage its contributions to our leadership in research and in the production of IP. It will damage our prospects for growth. Can the Minister give us his assessment of the likely impact of this NIC rise on our university sector and its ability to operate? We need a proper impact assessment on this and many of the other things that we are discussing.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5 in this group, which would amend Clause 1 to retain the original rate of 13.8% for both charities and housing associations. I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I also support Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Sharkey, and Amendment 8 in the name of my noble friend Lady Kramer. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for his support for my amendment.
Given the previous Government’s record and the legacy they left, charities and not-for-profit organisations, such as housing associations, will be a vital part of the Government’s future plans—for instance, to increase housing and end homelessness, which is an ambition that can and should be realised. I am going to use one case study to highlight what is going to happen to housing associations. I would really appreciate it if the Minister could respond to that case study, which is about the housing association Peabody.
For context, the recent government announcement of £500 million for the affordable homes programme for the whole of the UK is the equivalent of around £500 million that Peabody alone spent in the last financial year on bringing new homes into play and having a development pipeline. It is a very significant partner, I would say, in terms of some of the objectives that the Government have.
Peabody estimates that the additional cost for it is likely to be around £800,000 and would challenge the viability of some of its services, particularly supported housing and care services that rely so much on high levels of staffing. Those supported housing and care services are provided for more than 10,000 people, with a wide range of complex needs, from addiction to recovery from mental illness, as well as people at risk from homelessness, those with learning disabilities and young people, as well as people who are older and in need of specialist accommodation. For some housing associations, the proposed increase would wipe out much of the additional revenue generated from the Government’s proposed five-year rent settlement. Across London’s 15 largest housing associations, it is estimated that the increase will cost around £30 million, which could impact other key priorities such as new homes in development.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the charitable themes of Amendment 5. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as a trustee of three charities in Perth and Kinross which employ people. The number of people that they employ ranges from 30 to 130. In particular, I am chair of Culture Perth and Kinross, which employs about 130 people, which is equivalent to 98 full-time people.
Culture Perth and Kinross has 14 libraries and two museums and, as a charity, we run those things. I have been the chair for nine years. Of course, in the winter, these 16 locations are warm spaces for the people in Perth and Kinross. Although Perth and Kinross has an image which is quite ritzy, it is actually rather a poor place. Statistically, it is one of the poorer places in Scotland, which is statistically poorer than England. As such, we on the board, which is made up of local people of every description, focus very much on that aspect of our community service.
I should say that the local council involved is also not very well funded and at the maximum of its borrowings. Of course, it has suffered from the way in which the Scottish Government have dealt with local council funding over the years. We have a very good relationship with the extremely hard-working chief executive of that council. When we have money problems, we cannot go to it. Our money is essentially fixed some way beforehand. We get a lot from the council and some from the Scottish Government; we get some from generous charities, and we have a few individuals who give us money as well, including some who serve on the board. However, our money is fixed.
I asked to have the figures made available for this debate, and the figure for us is £124,000 extra. About a third of that is the increase from 13.8% to 15%. About two-thirds of that is the reduction in the limit as it comes in because, in our 98 full-time-equivalent posts—occupied by 133 people—we employ quite a lot of people who do a small number of hours, and we made use of that space of between £5,000 and £9,100 over the starting limit.
The board will meet on 31 January to discuss what on earth we will do in this very difficult position. Of course, I have the benefit of having had extensive discussions with the chief executive, and I know what the briefing paper will say because I have helped to settle it. It will say that our options are limited: to reduce staff, which will presumably increase the cost on the Government in terms of people not working; and in particular to reduce opening hours, which will remove the warm spaces that I was talking about a moment ago. I am sure that these are unintended consequences of the changes the Government have wanted to make all round.
I have heard the Minister talk many times about why he has taken the choices he has. I understand that, but it occurred to me that, with this type of unintended consequence and with the detail I provided, there is at least a case for some sort of carve-out for smaller charities, either on the increase in the rate or on the increase in the starting limit, or it is simply to have a delay—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Which, indeed, we are about to have, my Lords. The Division Bells have rung and the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I had really come to the end but I will repeat my final couple of sentences. I ask the Minister whether there might be some room, given that the net gain to the Treasury in the situation for Culture Perth and Kinross would be very small at best, and that I suspect that for similar circumstances the story would be the same, for an exemption or carve-out for either the increase in rate or the increase in the starting limit for smaller charities, or indeed simply a delay for one year. We are simply not flexible enough to try to attend to the funding requirements for that.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 5, to both of which I have added my name. I echo the excellent words of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who introduced the issue of the childcare sector. I do not particularly need to add to those words, or indeed to what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said about universities, except to say that I have a university that I can remember being built in my back garden, effectively—it is not really my back garden but I could see it rise. That is Brunel University, which is excellent and, like every other such institution, it has its problems. A few years ago, I suggested that it changed the name to “Uxbridge University”, hoping that some benefactors from across the United States might get confused with Uxbridge and Oxbridge and send lots of money across. Like so many of my cunning plans, that was rejected out of hand.
I also want to speak particularly to Amendment 5 about charities, although housing associations are an important issue, too. But the issue of charities is the one we should probably be most aware of. I have to declare that I am a trustee of several charities. I have stood down from a few more in the past year or so but a lot of these charities have approached me and told me of the huge costs. Although for some of the smaller ones the costs may not be the same, in relative terms they are just as difficult.
Earlier today, I wanted to get in on a Question about the National Trust, and there were many people on both sides, but particularly on the government and Liberal Democrat sides, saying that the National Trust is a great organisation, and I would echo that. But I wonder how many people who pay their subscriptions want to see them going not towards the landscape or the historic houses, or whatever, but being swallowed up by these increases.
One charity where I was a member of the council—a trustee—until earlier this year was the RSPB and it was the same thing. It was a huge amount; we are talking about it having to pay out a couple of million. The thing with charities—I think this was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but I would like to reiterate it—is that it is not a matter of putting any prices up because they are supplying stuff. Their funding comes from either organisations, such as foundations or whatever, or individual donations. Charities are not charging for their services. They are performing lots of things which the state would otherwise have to pick up.
One thing which struck me when these organisations approached me, having seen that I put my name down to amendments, is when they told me how much they were going to have to pay they were reticent about me disclosing that, which I will stick to. I thought first, “Why are they so reticent? Is it that they do not want to upset the Government because they want to keep on-side?”. That is a perfectly logical position at this early stage of a Government. After a while, most organisations start to hate the Government rather than the political party who form that Government. Then I thought, “Maybe they do not want to because they have to rely on donations”. Whether it is somebody giving just a few pounds to the Dogs Trust or in a charity shop, if they think that that money is effectively going to the Treasury and not to the good cause that they want to support, they might be less keen. People sometimes do not need much of an excuse.
I am sure many noble Lords here today will have heard the excuse when people do not want to give to charities. They say, “Oh, it is not going to go directly to what I want it to go to”. This is something that charities will be nervous about saying publicly. I am sure that the Minister will have had representations from many charities, because they are extremely worried. This has really upset the whole sector, and it should be reconsidered.
As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, there is another possibility. I do not want to give the Minister too many let-outs, but one possibility would be to delay it. Most of these organisations, particularly by this time of the year, have made their budgets. They have put in applications for funding from other organisations and put various amounts in. To suddenly find an increased cost that they were not expecting makes it very difficult for those budgets to be met. Although I have raised the point on other sectors, to me it is the charitable sector which is the most vulnerable. We should really be considering whether we want to impose this on it.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this group, particularly Amendments 4 and 5, but the arguments that I make really apply to many of these early groups because each one is a special plea. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton asked, “How can you speak out against an exemption in favour of veterans?”. The same could be said for small animals or whatever tugs at our heartstrings, but it comes back to the argument that my noble friend Lord Eatwell made so powerfully, which is that in an already complicated tax and national insurance system, we should avoid any further complexity if we can, and I think that the price which that may impose on different organisations is a price worth paying.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about her involvement in attempts to achieve tax simplification when she was in government. It was the Conservative Government who introduced the Office of Tax Simplification and then abolished it, perhaps because it came up with the inconvenient truth that the agricultural and business relief regime should be reviewed and, implicitly, abolished.
At Second Reading, I made a declaration of interests which include being a trustee of two charities. One of them is a higher education institution, so it is covered doubly by Amendment 4 and Amendment 5. Many noble Lords who have spoken have referred to their personal experience of charities or different organisations. I have to say that I am struck by the fact that the organisations of which I am a trustee have, without any input from me, taken this philosophically as a cost that they must cope with. No increase in cost is welcome. Energy-led inflation was not. The insurance inflation that we are all suffering from, the wage inflation that we have seen and the overall increase in the cost of living are unwelcome costs for any organisation, large or small, to bear.
As I suggested at Second Reading, there is an understanding in many organisations, including commercial ones—I cited the comments of Mr James Daunt, as chief executive of Waterstones and his eponymous chain of bookshops—that the purpose of this revenue-raising from the changes to NI feeds into supporting the community from which organisations draw their employees, customers and donors. For this reason, although I do not welcome the increase in the cases of the organisations with which I am associated and of the many others that are similarly affected, I believe in the simplicity of applying the same rate to pretty much all organisations in the private and voluntary sectors. The arguments for simplicity outweigh those of the individual challenges that this measure will give organisations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, who is very wise and diligent. For many years, we were together on the Economic Affairs Committee. I agree with him about the simplification of the tax system. Indeed, the Office of Tax Simplification was a recommendation from the tax commission that I chaired back in 2006 to George Osborne and David Cameron. It was implemented and, somehow, the Treasury managed to bog it down in a way that prevented it doing an effective job.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that we need a simpler, fairer tax system. The simplest way of dealing with that would be not to have this increase at all because then there would not be the need to have these exemptions. This is a problem that has been created by the Chancellor and the Government. I must say, in speaking to these amendments, that Amendments 4, 5 and 8—
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
Okay, let us say that we do not have this measure at all. Is the noble Lord going to cover the expenditure by borrowing or is he not going to spend on the health service, care services and the areas set out by the Minister in his scene-setting remarks?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Lord is very diligent in his reading. I am sure that he will have read the all-party report that has only just been published by the Economic Affairs Committee of this House, which points to where savings can be made in welfare in a way that will encourage people back to work to make a productive contribution to our economy. That is my answer to the noble Lord’s question.
I have great sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. As I was about to say, I do not know who did the grouping for Amendments 4, 5 and 8 but it is hard to think of more diverse subjects than education, registered charities, housing associations, town councils and parish councils, all of which are in one grouping. I am astonished that we are expected to deal with all of them here, so I may test the patience of the Committee in trying to address all of them.
Do noble Lords remember “Education, education, education”, that great banner carried by Sir Tony Blair, then leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister? Whatever has happened to the Labour Party that it wants to put a tax on the provision of education for those aged five and younger? It is most extraordinary, and therefore this amendment is very sensible. We all know that women, in particular, find it extremely difficult to combine childcare with work; this is adding to the cost of childcare.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am standing in what would usually be a winding position, but I think Amendments 4 and 5 have been so thoroughly discussed and I am very much in support of most of the comments.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that I think it is very dangerous to always worship at the altar of simplification. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, if it was the precise phrase, you end up with so many hard cases as a consequence of that. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, talked about a specific charity that is delivering warm spaces—and on a day like today, when we have had to bring additional heaters into this Room, boy, something like that comes home. It is now facing additional costs that it could not possibly have planned for, without the time to put any kind of scheme in place that would give it the breathing space to be able to deal with that kind of challenge. I just find it extraordinary.
However, I wanted primarily to speak to Amendment 8, which has been less discussed today. I thank the National Association of Local Councils for a briefing. Like many others, I was very shocked when the Government confirmed that the upper tier of local authorities would qualify for financial support to offset the increased cost of employer NICs, but parish and town councils were to be excluded because they do not receive funding through the local government finance scheme. Parish and town councils raise their funding via precept. Therefore, these councils will undoubtedly have to increase local taxes in order to cover the additional costs. They have nowhere else to go.
I am sure that that was not in Labour’s manifesto and that this is something Labour did not intend, but there really is no other route they can go down other than to increase council tax. Its calculation is that the NICs increase will cost English parish and town councils approximately £10 million each year, requiring an increase of something between 1.5% and 3% to cover the additional cost—that is £10 million each year, and £50 million over the life of a Parliament. It really is a rounding error. I just cannot understand why town and parish councils were excluded from the provision for upper tier councils.
Part of the argument is around fairness, but there is also an argument around democracy. Many people can relate to their town and parish councils, as others have said, in a way that they do not relate to higher tiers. It is at the parish and town level that money goes to projects that are specifically designed around the needs of a local community. They really are very different in the services that they provide. I am concerned, on a broader scale, about the centralisation of local government that we have been seeing: in essence, we are looking at unitary authorities with something like half a million people in them as the decision-making, strategic and implementation element of local government.
I very much fear that the difficulties that parish and town councils will face will turn them much more into agencies of that upper tier, rather than something at the level of local government with the capacity to respond to local needs and to underpin the character and nature of each individual community. The amount of money is so trifling that, in putting these councils on an equal basis with upper tier ones, there must be some other agenda at work here. I do not know what it is; perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.
This amendment is in my name, as are Amendments 4 and 5. I very much hope that the Government are listening because these are issues of significance.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I will be brief; I want specifically to speak in favour of Amendment 8, given that I raised this issue at Second Reading. I should declare my position as vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils.
I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. I have just one point to add. As the noble Baroness was speaking, I was thinking about a recent visit to Shropshire. A whole lot of town and parish council leaders and councillors were gathered in a room and talking about all the projects that their councils were running. One of the things I thought about were the photos and slides that were being shown, and how much volunteer effort was involved in the projects being displayed. The money is spent by town and parish councils because they are close to, and there in, the community. Often, it is a community effort to install the bug hotel in the allotments or to put up swift boxes around towns—all sorts of things that many people get involved in on a voluntary level. In taking money away from that, the multiplier effect is much greater. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, we are talking about a tiny sum of money in central government terms but something that is hugely consequential in communities up and down the land.
I spoke at some length on charities earlier but there are two specific points that I want to make. I mentioned earlier—the Minister did not respond to me on this—the idea of having a one-year delay for charities so that they have time to work out both the budget and ways to deal with the rise in national insurance; this was something that both the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about that point regarding a delay specifically for charities.
I wish to pick up the point from the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, about complexity. An organisation either is or is not a charity. That would be a really simple way to see this, involving low paperwork. Complexity would be easy to introduce; for a small or medium-sized enterprise or something, it might be more complicated. I do not think, I am afraid, that anyone can compete with the Green Party on our views on simplification because we want to roll together income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax. If that were the case, the Green Minister would not be over there: we would be going through this in one day in the House—provided it was still constituted as it is now when we got to that stage.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4, 5 and 8 in this group. It is an unusual group, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned, because it covers such a diverse range of services. But they are all public services, which is why I agree with the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which I may have misheard, that this special pleading does not really fit well with the concept of hurting public services. These all have in common the semi-independent provision of public service. That is the essence of the dissonance in government policy for this area, which is that the Government are protecting direct public services but have not really thought through what to do about indirect public services, of which the charity sector is a huge provider and has been now for 20 years. It is almost as if we have fooled ourselves by saying, “Well, it’s in the charity sector now so it’s not a public service”—but large charities deliver public services, as do universities. To imagine that they are entirely private and away from the Government is obviously not in line with other areas of policy.
So, that is the essence of why, in an unusual way, these amendments have been gathered. But they have this feature in common and, as we address this, we are trying to find a way through that protects public services. In her very good comments at the start, the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, used the expression “vital partner in public services”. That is what these are: they are vital partners. In essence, sectors of the economy that provide public services—which, certainly within this debate, we should assume are appropriate and are needed—will be affected and, again without a proper impact assessment or proper analysis, the cost of those impacts will almost certainly be taken by the Government. That is the essence of this area of public service delivery, which is that the Government are ultimately on the hook for all this. They are hoping that the services can be provided away from any greater demands on the Treasury, but the truth is that, when it goes wrong, it will go straight back up to the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, spoke so well about universities. What is going on in the university sector cannot be anything but bad news for the Treasury. It must be hoping and praying that the whole situation can just be kicked along without a huge hit coming back to the Treasury one way or another, because the sector is in trouble at the moment. But everybody knows that, when it goes wrong, it will go back up to the Treasury. So let us be careful in putting through changes that make vulnerable public service provision more vulnerable. Surely that is the essence of this area of dissonant policy that is coming out from the Bill.
Specifically on each amendment, Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to exempt both early years providers and universities, and indeed it is fair to say that the Government have not fully considered the impact on the education system. I look forward to further discussion on the individual aspects of the education system later in the debate. There have been calls from across the sector, from early years providers to universities, that costs will be far too much for the sector to bear, so if the Government could appropriately explain their evidence that indicates the opposite, it would be most appreciated.
Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, seeks to exempt charities, and it certainly seems as though the sentiment across the sector is that this tax will leave many charities in a position where they are forced to reduce services and limit headcount, preventing them offering the same excellent services that they currently do. This tax cannot be seen as anything another than a tax raid that will damage charities across the country.
We also support Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as the Government have contradicted themselves in regard to local councils. When publishing their local government finance policy for 2025-26, they claimed to understand the issues that councils faced and recognised that, in recent years, the costs of providing services had increased, yet the Bill completely contradicts that and highlights the Government’s chosen direction that does not react to the current situation.
The Local Government Association has claimed that councils will face a shortfall of £637 million next year as a direct result of this poorly thought through tax change. On top of that, it has estimated that it may cost up to another £1.13 billion through indirect costs on suppliers. Neither of these numbers will be offset by the £515 million compensation the Government intend to give. Will the Government say how they reached such a number and whether they will publish the data they used?
These are early questions around these areas of public services. The impacts could be quite large and quite burdensome—ultimately and unluckily, for the Government themselves.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords. I will address the amendments and proposed new clauses proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Storey, Lord Sharkey and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which seek to exclude early-years settings, universities, charities, housing associations and town and parish councils from the new employer national insurance rate. I have listened very carefully to all contributions made in this debate and, of course, I understand the points raised.
The Government recognise that early-years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible. That is why, in our manifesto, the Government committed to delivering the expansion of government-funded childcare for working parents and to opening 3,000 new or expanded nurseries through upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector.
Despite the very challenging circumstances the Government inherited, in the Budget in October the Chancellor announced significant increases to the funding that early-years providers are paid to deliver government-funded childcare places. This means that total funding will rise to more than £8 billion in 2025-26. It is very likely that many private nurseries will be able to claim the employment allowance, as receiving public funds does not necessarily mean that work is of a public nature, and they should check HMRC guidance.
On universities, I of course recognise the great value—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I accept that more money has been allocated to nursery and early-years provision, but providers are also facing increased costs. Does the Minister not accept that the national insurance charge is one that has been implemented by the Government, so the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other? The Minister is not really addressing the point that this is an unbudgeted cost that is being imposed on top of all the other costs that they face.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I totally understand the points that the noble Lord is making but, as I said at the outset, there are specific reasons for the Bill. Those decisions are difficult decisions, but they are necessary decisions.
On universities, I recognise the great value of UK higher education in creating opportunity, being an engine for growth in our economy and supporting local communities. The Budget provided £6.1 billion of support for core research and confirmed the Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement, a major reform to student finance that will expand access to high-quality, flexible education and training for adults throughout their working lives.
The Secretary of State for Education has since confirmed that maximum fees will rise in the academic year 2025-26 for the first time since 2017, from £9,250 to £9,535 for a standard full-time undergraduate course. This was a difficult decision which demonstrates that the Government are serious about the need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing.
I have previously set out the Government’s position on additional impact assessments.
I turn to charities and housing associations. The Government recognise the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of all businesses, including charities, with national insurance liabilities will either gain or see no change next year.
The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax regime. The UK’s tax regime is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024.
More broadly, the Government deliver a number of grant and support programmes, including the community organisations cost of living fund last year and the ongoing social enterprise boost fund. Across 2023-24, the National Lottery community fund made grant awards totalling more than £900 million, 84% of which were under £10,000, with the majority supporting grass-roots organisations.
Regarding housing associations, the Government have announced major steps towards delivering a once-in-a-generation increase in social housing, including supporting the housing associations that deliver this. We are consulting on long-term social rent settlements to provide housing associations with the long-term stability they need to deliver crucial services. I am afraid that I cannot comment on the specific case that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, set out, as I do not have all the information about it, but I am of course more than happy to discuss with her at any time. On the wider points, any exemptions, carve-outs or delays would of course undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which I have set out before.
Finally, Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to exclude town and parish councils from the employer national insurance rate change. The Government have no direct role in funding parish and town councils and therefore do not intend to provide further support for the employer national insurance changes. This is in line with the approach taken for previous national insurance policy changes, including the previous Government’s health and social care levy.
All these proposed amendments would of course come at a cost. They would necessitate either higher borrowing, lower public spending or new revenue-raising measures. That is not what this Government intend to do. For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. I want to make one observation. My noble friend Lady Grender and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, talked about charities. Many charities provide services which nobody else pays for and they do not get government funding. For example, this will affect tremendously the hospice movement, which looks after terminally ill people. In my home city of Liverpool, there is a charity called Zoe’s Place that looks after terminally ill babies. It has had major building problems and was looking at having to close down. What happened? The local community and the business community all piled in and saved that building. These increased costs will affect that charity, as they will affect other charities too.
With thanks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
We now move on to the next group. I call Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, before we start on that amendment, it is 7.28 pm and the Committee is due to finish at 7.45 pm. It always used to be the custom that if we would cover only a very short part of a group, we would normally draw stumps at that stage. That is the way it has always been done in the past. Obviously, we do not absolutely have to finish every group, but we do not normally start a quite significant group with a large number of amendments when there are so few minutes left, so I would like clarification on what will happen in this Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
In answer to the noble Baroness, I am in the hands of the usual channels.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
They were once described as some of the most polluted waterways in Europe.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I understand that we have the grace of an extra 10 minutes after 7.45 pm. My understanding was that we would like to carry on and that noble Lords would come back if we do not finish the group. However, the Minister says that he is fine to break now, so if that is the will of the Committee then I am happy to do so. We seemed to be making real progress; I apologise for breaking any convention, but I am happy to be reasonable.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
There is also the point that there may be another Division within the next quarter of an hour.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I understand that Amendment 17 has been withdrawn in the Chamber.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. In the spirit of good will in the Committee, this would be an appropriate time for us to draw stumps.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
In the spirit of good will, the Committee is adjourned.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Wednesday 29th January 2025
(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 56-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (27 Jan 2025)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a business with an annual turnover of less than £1 million.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would exempt the smallest businesses from the increase in national insurance contributions.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 6 in my name and to speak to my Amendments 23 and 48, all on small business—a subject dear to my heart, as noble Lords will recall from our debates on the Procurement Act in the last Parliament, mostly in this very Room.
Small business is at the entrepreneurial heart of the economy. We need a constant stream of start-ups for an economy that is dynamic. The amount of regulation on such businesses is already discouraging. My own findings are that the imposition of additional employer NICs is leading some businesses towards despair, with more closed shops on the high street and busy insolvency practitioners. Others are not setting up. Their customers are affected by the chill created by the Budget and the enormous NICs hit in particular, which has a multiplier effect on confidence.
I acknowledge that the increase in the employment allowance is helpful and I congratulate the Federation of Small Businesses on its work on this with the Treasury and DBT. However, more needs to be done to drive growth. I believe that easing the strain of NICs on SMEs could play an important part.
My Amendment 6 would exempt micro-businesses with an annual turnover of less than £1 million from this jobs tax. I have tabled this amendment because I want to understand whether the Government would consider an exemption that would have a relatively low impact on the revenue that the Treasury receives from this policy. To exempt such small businesses would not come at a great cost to the Treasury, yet it would have a big impact on the businesses that it would protect and on attitudes to the Government’s plans. The Financial Conduct Authority defines “small businesses” as companies with an annual turnover of less than £1 million—hence my choice for the threshold. I add that even many of these businesses may not survive recent tax rates. The Government will be failing in their promise, I fear, to be the most pro-business Government ever.
My proposal would be a modest step in the right direction and would reduce the negative knock-on effect of the NICs changes, in terms of jobs, shop and business closures and the higher prices that follow reduced competition. You see that effect, when a couple of coffee shops close, on the price of your latte.
I was interested to hear the Chancellor this morning saying that
“growth isn’t simply about lines on a graph. It’s about the pounds in people’s pockets. The vibrancy of our high streets”.
Chance would be a fine thing for the hard-working domestic SMEs that I am talking about.
Amendment 23 in my name seeks to increase the per-employer threshold at which employers begin paying national insurance on employees’ earnings, from £5,000 to £7,500—sort of halfway. We know that Clause 2 is the most punitive part of the Bill, hitting small businesses and social enterprises hardest. As the OBR acknowledges, this jobs tax will have the indirect effect of stifling wages, as employers look to offset these increased costs.
Amendment 48 would increase the employment allowance for small businesses to £20,000. The increase in the allowance is very welcome, as I have said, as is the lifting of the EU-based limit on eligibility—ironically, a new Brexit freedom, on which I congratulate the Minister. However, many small businesses have more than three or four people, or so, which means that the increase in the allowance will be less than the additional NICs charge. We should debate in Grand Committee, as we did on procurement, how to improve matters.
I would be delighted to be able to congratulate the Minister on an entrepreneurial step by increasing the allowance and removing the threat and hassle of NICs for more employers. I know that he shares my passion for easing barriers to growth and I see this as a new barrier that he could mitigate.
I very much look forward to hearing my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Londesborough and I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon cannot be here this afternoon. We all feel the same way about the importance of cherishing the enterprise spirit and will welcome a constructive discussion on what more can be done to ease the pressure on small businesses. The Chancellor’s speech today and the long-term nature of most of her growth drivers strengthen the case for a concession on this now. I beg to move.
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.
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.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
As my noble friend says, you get a knighthood—possibly even a barony. If you get something wrong, throw more money at it until it becomes an embarrassment that can no longer be hidden and hushed up. HS2’s original budget was £37.5 billion. Only when the estimated cost has risen to £90 billion—and counting—is the project being reined in. The idea of spending £100 million on a bat shelter defies the imagination. I mean: who could have thought of that one?
As economists are being quoted, might I quote Professor Milton Friedman? He said:
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand”.
What the Government should do is what anybody in this Room, faced with the same problem in their own life—too much spending and not enough income—would do: cut spending to solve the problem. Given that that is unlikely to happen, will His Majesty’s Government carefully consider what they are doing and try to reduce some of the negative consequences of this increase in national insurance for employers? A sensible first step would be to prepare a proper impact assessment for those small companies, often described as the engine of the economy.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, we have a lot of sympathy for the amendments in this group. My noble friend Lady Kramer has added her name to Amendment 22.
It is absolutely right that we should be concerned about the effects of the proposed NICs rise on small businesses. These businesses are at the heart of our economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, said several Prime Ministers ago:
“There are over 5.7 million Small to Medium Enterprises in the UK. They are the engine of growth in our economy, driving innovation and greater productivity, finding solutions and creating jobs”.
In fact, our SMEs provide 16.6 million jobs—60% of the total number in the United Kingdom. Their total turnover is estimated at £2.8 trillion. They are in many ways more important than much larger businesses—certainly when it comes to providing jobs—but they are probably more vulnerable than large businesses to these NIC changes, with less ability to absorb increased costs. The SME landscape is very varied, but it seems vital for us to be able to assess the likely effects of the proposals before us on different sizes of SMEs.
That is why I note in particular Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. As she explained, this amendment proposes an impact assessment of the provisions in Clause 2 on employers with an annual turnover of less than £1 million, less than £5 million and less than £10 million before the changes in the clause can be brought about; these are probably the sizes of business that are most likely to have difficulty dealing with the additional costs imposed by this Bill. It would have been good to have had such an impact assessment before these debates, but Amendment 33 would go some way to putting that right, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, remarked—pace the charge of underspecification from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. Perhaps the Minister could provide us with more granular estimates of the effects of Clause 2 on the smaller SMEs even if he cannot, or will not, provide us with the traditional, full and necessary impact assessment.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I would like to put this discussion in the context of the profitability of the small businesses that we are talking about. The noble Lords who proposed these amendments have effectively made the point that many of these small businesses will be the engine of growth—the acorns that will develop and be the big businesses of the future. In successful small businesses, profitability varies tremendously, depending on the sector and capital intensity, but it would not be unusual for a business of this scale to have a net profit margin of around 10%. However, in some sectors, such as retail, hospitality and construction, that margin may be as low as 2% or 3%. When you are talking about adding 1% to the cost of employment, where the employment may be a significant part of the turnover, you can see that the impact on the net profit margin is potentially devastating, particularly since, in many cases, the percentage increase in their national insurance bill will be larger than 1%.
Clearly, we must be particularly concerned about start-ups because they are not yet successfully established trading businesses. They may have to undergo a number of years of losses before they get to that position. They accumulate those losses and they have to pay interest on those losses and, projecting forward, the additional costs may well tip the balance on whether those profitability equations earn an adequate return on capital to make the investment worth while.
Amendment 6 proposes to exempt businesses with a turnover of below £1 million. Obviously, that is a broad category to cover. We do not know exactly how many people are employed in such businesses but, as a rough proxy, the number of people employed in businesses with less than 50 employees is 47% of the entire UK workforce. We are talking about a significant part of the workforce being impacted by these changes, potentially in a significant way.
I heed the message from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that we should not be complicating the tax system, but the only reason why we are discussing these amendments is the proposal to increase national insurance. If the Minister does not want to accept a broad exemption for small businesses, it would be helpful to the Committee if the Government could suggest amendments that would exclude those businesses that we are particularly concerned about—the start-ups and those on narrow profit margins—and see if there is a way in which to ensure that the engines of growth in this sector are not destroyed or damaged.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I just want to follow up on that excellent point made by my noble friend. It is a long time since I ran a small business, but I can still remember the feeling of fear as to whether, as one started up, one was going to have enough to meet the payroll at the end of the month. There is pressure on client and other businesses and there are risks, and events can drive you off course. When you have produced your budget for the year and are reliant on certain things happening, out of a blue sky—actually, the Labour Government did not come out of a blue sky; that was obviously going to happen—you suddenly have to find all this extra money. The impact is harder on the smallest businesses of that kind. It is hard to quantify and saps the enthusiasm and drive among entrepreneurs when they are faced by this.
I am very supportive of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s determination to get growth in this country and the way she is going about it. However, as has been pointed out by several noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, put it most crisply—small businesses are the ones that will become big businesses; they are the ones that will create the wealth, while the large businesses will shed labour. We keep being told how AI will mean that those businesses will be laying off labour. However, the small businesses are the ones that will be using artificial intelligence, if you believe it will be such a big change. They are the ones that will develop and use AI, but they are also being hammered and will find themselves facing great difficulty.
It is also the case that small businesses find it hardest to get support from the banks, because, increasingly, the large clearing banks are not interested. As we have heard in the Financial Services Regulation Committee, they are increasingly not interested in supporting SMEs. If the Chancellor’s determination is to get growth, hobbling small, embryo businesses is not a smart idea, if you are taking at least a longer-term view of three to five years.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Given what my noble friend has said, would he agree with what I said earlier: that, actually, the money does not come back into the economy and that, when it is taken out, those companies that have been hit so hard end up going abroad? It becomes so much cheaper and easier to manufacture abroad that, looking at it from a wider perspective, it is completely negative.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend. Actually, it is worse than manufacturing going abroad. Just think of this: where are the sorts of areas of business, in terms of distribution or marketing, where people are employed who are not particularly well paid but on whom there will be a big impact from this national insurance cost on the employers? They are in places like call centres. Suddenly you find that you get a huge additional bill for running your call centre, which you may be required to do as a matter of government regulation or for all kinds of reasons—it may not be directly related to your product. So what will you do? You will outsource it to India or some other country. The jobs will go, because it will be much cheaper. The quality may not be the same, but it might be the difference between surviving and not. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, this national insurance thing has to be seen in the round. Then add all the other things that are going up: the energy costs, which are going up—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
It may be 10 minutes; I will sit down and then I will get up and make my speech again, if the noble Baroness likes. It is advisory.
There are energy costs that people are faced with, the impact of increasing regulatory burdens and the fact that people are just giving up. The lack of an impact statement, which seems to be becoming a habit for this Government, is a major criticism. They have already got into difficulty due to not doing this. They have had to revise the proposals they put forward for non-doms because they suddenly discovered that the impact of their policy would actually reduce revenue, so they had to change it. Had they done a proper impact statement, they would never have made that mistake—and there are other examples.
So these amendments are important, and I hope the Minister will take these arguments on board and think again.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise; I was not in the country to be present during Second Reading, although I did have the chance to discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, while we were supporting a much smaller economy than our own.
I support all the amendments in this group. I will speak later on the impact on the charities sector, in particular on social care homes, but I will concentrate now on the effect on business, in particular small business.
Small business is, of course, notoriously difficult to determine. There are all sorts of definitions of small business all over the legislation. The definitions that have been proposed are perfectly adequate. Companies House calls businesses small if their revenue is less than £10.2 million and they have fewer than 50 employees, and adds some balance sheet footing restrictions. Micro companies, however, are those that make less than £632,000.
One of the problems with the amendments—that can, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, be revised—is how the Government will work out which companies are eligible for this reduction. As we know from our work on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, Companies House does not require disclosure of revenue for these small companies, particularly if the balance sheet and employee numbers are lower. The numbers are there in HMRC but, as we have discovered, HMRC will not release them. This could of course be self-selecting.
I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell— I say this as a qualified tax accountant who is always happy to sharpen his pencil—that there will be any money in this for tax accountants trying to find wiggle room. These proposals are the simplest and most effective way to reduce costs for small companies. The proposal that the noble Lord suggests—I think I quote him—of “subsidies or benefits” is much more complicated and dangerous. I accept that research and development tax credits do a good job, but subsidies and benefits for small companies in place of reducing national insurance would be a far greater administrative burden, in my opinion.
These amendments directly affect small businesses. As we have heard from a number of people, they will suffer because higher employment costs lead to lower hiring capacity and potential job costs. This will lead to lower wages, which will lower morale and lead to higher wages, with pressure on employers. It leads to less investment and growth. The inevitable lower profits, which I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth indicated, means that covenants are at risk, which is a real issue for small businesses because banks are not sympathetic to this issue.
I too declare an interest: like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I started a business. I had one partner and one assistant, and I too had sleepless nights about how we were going to survive and pay the payroll. We have 220 employees now, but my experience makes me very concerned for the survival of small companies. It has to be said that, although the Government Front Bench in the other place have many skills, abilities and experiences, none of them has started a small business. None of them knows and understands the pressures the small business men and women face. The risk of starting a business means that they have typically put up money secured on their home and left gainful employment so to do.
I urge the Front Bench here to listen to those who have been through that and adopt the sensible suggestion to conduct a proper assessment of the implications of what has been proposed. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, there are clearly economic challenges, but there are other ways of sorting them. The best, in my opinion, is to think about the 9 million people who are economically inactive. Steps taken to get the economically inactive into employment will dramatically improve the economy, whereas constantly justifying everything by the infamous £22 billion black hole does not lead to a sensible discussion.
Andy Haldane said that the black hole event was
“unnecessary and probably unhelpful economically”.
The aforementioned OBR has said that
“it was unable to confirm chancellor Rachel Reeves’ claim that she inherited a £22bn ‘black hole’ in the public finances from the previous administration”.
To be fair, the Chancellor’s claim that the Treasury had not been transparent about the pressures on the public finances resonates, but the chair of the OBE himself said that he
“could not endorse the £22bn ‘black hole’ figure specifically”.
Mr Hughes told a press conference a few months after the Budget that it was simply “impossible to say”.
I refer your Lordships to an article in the Financial Times in which Mr Hughes “noted that other measures” the Chancellor
“had included in her estimate of the £22bn ‘black hole’”
included
“her own £9.4bn uplift to public sector pay”
without any productivity gains. The article went on to say that, sadly,
“the Treasury has failed to fully explain how it arrived at the £22bn number”—
I know that explanations have been given, but I do not think that they are satisfactory—
“declining to answer a Financial Times freedom of information request on the subject”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am following what my noble friend is saying carefully. He mentioned the number of people who are apparently economically inactive, as well as the great pressure that there is on low-margin hospitality businesses. What does he think is the likelihood of this measure resulting in larger numbers of people working in the black economy and the Government getting no tax receipts whatever? My noble friend will remember, from being on the Economic Affairs Select Committee’s Finance Bill Sub-Committee, the horrors that occurred with the loan charge: employers were asking people to be treated as if they were self-employed through agencies, which resulted in people getting enormous, life-changing bills. To what extent does my noble friend think that this imposition of costs will actually create all of these problems, to the disadvantage of the Treasury and many other people?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment, because it is clearly the case. Every single one of my corporate clients has told me that they have had to reforecast and rebudget with lower profit. Every single one has said that they are going to take steps to shave that back, and that those steps will include lowering their employment bill: they will either sack people, reduce hours or not recruit. Will that drive people into the so-called black economy? I cannot honestly answer that because I do not know, but the point is that none of us knows. This is why an impact assessment is so desperately needed before dangerous steps are taken to pressurise British business into—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, as Members may have noticed, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned until 5.28 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, we will resume the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has the floor.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I think that I had reached the conclusion of my remarks, which is that I support these amendments. I particularly support impact assessments.
Before I sit down, I just make the comment that it is somewhat strange to note that we were voting on something in the Chamber of the House relating to boxes in the Royal Albert Hall, but we are deprived of the opportunity to vote on the matter of national insurance rises for every company in the UK. That seems to me to be somewhat absurd.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I stand as a winding speaker but also as someone who attached their name to Amendment 22 from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which I think gets to the heart of the problem that we have with this Bill. To me, the most pernicious measure has been the dropping of the threshold, which has meant that trapped into employers’ national insurance contributions are the lowest paid and the part-timers. There is a disadvantageous impact on small businesses in hospitality and tourism, which are the backbone of so many communities and employ so many people for whom other work is very difficult to find. That makes it a really significant amendment, and I was very glad to attach my name.
I talked on an earlier set of amendments, essentially, about small businesses but also, more broadly, about tourism, hospitality and part-timers. I will not repeat that; the Committee has listened to me once on those issues and certainly does not need to hear me twice. I just make a small comment on why I am particularly concerned about the approach to small businesses, which is that it seems to me that the Government have put in some protections for what are genuinely micro-businesses but do not use “micro” and instead keep using “small”. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, identified the benchmark, which is about seven employees. Then you can start to do better under the changes that the Government have made. However, every time I read about the growth agenda, it requires the upscaling of our small businesses. This, in many ways, has been the British disease.
I was looking at reports from the ScaleUp Institute, which obviously does excellent surveys so you can get a granular feel of what is happening with many of these businesses. Most of them state that the first problem in scaling up is talent, but the second problem is access to finance. For a company that will now have to take on board additional costs—about £1,000 or more per employee—this will exaggerate that problem of access to finance. Many of them will now have to find finance in order to be able to cover the working capital that is engaged in paying higher employers’ national insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his excellent and interesting Second Reading speech, covered some of the issues associated with that credit.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
It was not a Second Reading speech; I was addressing the issues in the amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
We will have to beg to differ on that.
I think that the Minister will turn around and say that a great deal is being done for small businesses that want to upscale and that we should look at the British Business Bank. We are talking about an entity that is so small that it really cannot meet this need, so there is a very big problem here to be addressed. It seems to me that the way in which the national insurance contributions increase will work will knock back the effort that has to be made to help people get through what is often known as the credit valley of death, so that they can go from being small to the thriving, upscaled businesses that we need to drive the growth that we need.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I come in just to endorse what my noble friend Lady Noakes said about small businesses and indeed to support these amendments generally. I will speak on my own set of amendments later on with respect to impact assessments.
I founded a small business. Yes, it was a not-for profit-business—Politeia, which is a think tank—but, in 1995, we went through the phase described so well by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of wondering how we would meet employer payroll at the end of every month. From a comfortable position now looking back, we are still not exactly in a rosy situation because, every time policy changes or there are external shocks such as Covid, we face more costs. It is difficult to see how any small business needing to make a profit can do so and expand.
In my case, as someone involved in running a small business, I would say that we have a done a lot of good. It is a not-for-profit charitably funded think tank, but we train graduates and even young people coming straight from school who are finding their place in the job market. We have always paid slightly over the minimum wage once they get on to the payroll, and they go on to do great things: they join the Civil Service; they join the public sector; or they get training contracts and continue working with us, because it helps them to pay the fees for the next phase. We will have to think about that model, because they are going to cost a great deal more. Some of the senior staff earn much more decent salaries than perhaps even the people who founded the organisation do, and we will have to rethink the senior and experienced team because of the enormous hit that we are taking. That is not to mention all the other costs in the Budget.
From the perspective of a very micro-business, this will have serious consequences. I speak as somebody still involved in running it and raising the money. Noble Lords will know that people’s spare money that goes to think tanks such as mine will cease and those people will have to cut their own jobs—that is where the funding comes from. I urge the Government to think again about the proposal from my noble friend Lady Noakes and all the other excellent proposals in this group of amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this valuable debate, especially those such as my noble friend Lady Lawlor who have run small businesses. Having heard the concerns from noble Lords across the Committee and from across the sectors, I hope that the Minister will consider these amendments very seriously before we get to Report.
We know that this jobs tax will be bad for small businesses. The Government have not provided sufficient information in the light of all the calls from hard-pressed businesses, so more detailed information is necessary. SMEs are more vulnerable, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said. Even covenants are at risk, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Leigh. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, rightly talked about scale-ups being knocked back because of the problems that they are facing. I was particularly interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and to see his amendments. He had some very telling questions based on SMEs and on particular examples. I think that the Minister and the Treasury should properly examine some of his spreadsheets and, indeed, some of the other examples raised today, such as by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, who rightly talked about international competitiveness, and my noble friend Lord Blackwell, who made a telling comment about the lower-margin sectors, start-up and scale-up.
It was notable that, in her growth speech today, Rachel Reeves had little to say about small businesses and the difficulty that these NICs changes have placed on them. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, we are imperilling their success—their survival, even, in some cases—and the scale-ups that we need for growth. I detected a good deal of support for her amendment, so I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. As I have explained, the Chancellor’s speech strengthens the case for an exemption or a concession to help some or all of our smallest businesses to survive and to thrive. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions during this debate. I turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek to exempt from the employer national insurance rate rise employers with an annual turnover of less than £1 million, and the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, seeking to limit or remove the reduction in the secondary threshold by business size. Clearly, these amendments would have cost implications for this Bill, necessitating either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.
I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that small businesses are the heart of our economy. The Government are aware of the pressures on small businesses, which is why we are taking action as part of this Bill to protect the smallest businesses by increasing employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that, next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all. More than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package, and employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance.
The Government have also taken steps to strengthen small businesses’ ability to invest and grow. This includes freezing the small business multiplier, permanently reducing business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27 and publishing the Corporate Tax Roadmap to provide stability and certainty within the tax system for businesses across the economy.
I should also note, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, that creating new thresholds or rates based on the size of a business would introduce distortion and additional complexity into the tax system, and could disincentivise small businesses from growing by creating a cliff edge in the tax system.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeking to limit the reduction in the secondary threshold to £7,500 rather than the proposed £5,000. A smaller reduction in the secondary threshold, as is proposed by this amendment, would not raise the level of revenue required to fix the foundations and invest in our public services. It would mean higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.
I now turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Howard of Rising, which would prevent commencement until an impact assessment is published for small businesses of various sizes. The revenue raised from the measures in this Bill will enable the Government to repair the public finances while protecting working people and rebuilding our public services, including the NHS. Delaying commencement of this Bill would put this vital revenue at risk.
As I have already noted in the previous session of this Committee and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned, an assessment of the policy has already been published by HMRC in a tax information and impact note. As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said, that assessment set out that employers’ national insurance changes
“will impact around 1.2 million employers. Around 250,000 employers will see their Secondary Class 1 NICs liability decrease and around 940,000 will see it increase. Around 820,000 employers will see no change. Overall, more than half of businesses with NICs liabilities next year will either gain or will see no change in their secondary Class 1 NICs liabilities”.
I listened carefully to the specific examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. He asked for some specific figures, which I am afraid I am told are not available because the liability is on employers, not employees. As such, the data is not collected in the format that the noble Lord asked for.
Further, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have, therefore, already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and previous changes to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide any further impact assessments.
After the previous session of the Committee, I looked back at comparable tax measures over the past 14 years to check that I was correct in saying that the assessment that we are providing is in line with what was provided on those previous occasions. I found four such measures of an equivalent size: the health and social care levy; the increase in the corporation tax main rate to 25%; the income tax threshold freezes of the previous Government; and the increase in the VAT main rate to 20%. I looked at all those and I am absolutely satisfied that what we are providing on this occasion is, in fact, more information than was provided on any of those occasions. In fact, on the occasion of the increase in VAT to 20%, no impact assessment was published at all.
Having studied those, I am very confident that what we are now providing is absolutely consistent with what previous Governments have provided, in terms of impact assessments, on all previous such equivalent occasions. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite, when they were in government, objected to the impact assessments that were put out on tax measures, but I am very confident that these are absolutely in line with what was put out in the past. As a result, the Government have no intention to provide any further impact assessments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
On impact assessments, I think I am well known for my requesting them—I even voted against my own Government on one occasion —because they are very important and helpful. I do not think that the Minister has yet answered, although he may go on to do so, the point that my noble friend Lady Noakes made about the effect of adding in the minimum wage to the impact note that was produced. That would probably increase the figures, as she suggested; and cost benefit and transparency are very helpful. We have another amendment on this, and we will return to the charge, but I am very disappointed that there is no willingness to look at the specific examples from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, on the technicalities, which seem to merit some attention from the Government. I think that the Government must share our concern that we minimise the effect on small businesses as far as we can, which is why I am trying to be constructive in today’s Committee.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will simply restate my point to the noble Baroness: the approach that we are taking is absolutely in line with the approach taken to previous changes in national insurance and previous changes to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am slightly surprised, having listened to so many of his speeches since the general election, that he is holding up the practice of the previous Government as a standard by which he should be judged.
I asked specifically about the new proposals in the Budget for non-doms, which have turned out to be disastrous in terms of the number of people who have left, and which have forced the Chancellor to make changes. Does he not recognise that, had an impact statement been done, they might have discovered what the impact would have been? That is for the benefit not just of the Opposition but of the Government themselves. Accountability strengthens Governments; it does not weaken them. Can he not see that the idea of producing impact statements is absolutely central to the whole process of accountability and prevents the Government making disastrous mistakes of the kind that is proposed in this Bill?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I dispute the noble Lord’s description of the non-dom policy and the impacts that it has had. A tax information and impact note was put out alongside that policy, so we actually did put out an assessment alongside it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am of course very familiar with that, but it was wrong, was it not? It was not an effective impact statement; otherwise, it would not have been necessary to change the policy.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We have not changed the policy; we have made the policy easier to use. The policy is absolutely as it was at the Budget, as is the amount of revenue that we are scoring from it. An impact assessment was put out alongside that. My point is that what we are doing on impact assessments, on all the taxes that the noble Lord mentioned, is absolutely in line with what all previous Governments have done on impact assessments. We are content that that is a sufficient amount of information, and we do not intend to put out any further impact assessments.
Finally, I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Altrincham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seek to increase the employment allowance for small businesses. Again, the proposals in these amendments would create additional costs, necessitating either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.
The Bill already seeks to protect the smallest businesses and is significantly increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that, next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all, and more than half of employers will see no change, or gain overall, from this package. For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I thank the Minister for his comments, but I am disappointed and, frankly, baffled that the Treasury can tell us specifically—he repeated these figures—how many employers are impacted by the national insurance increase, yet there is a curious resistance to answering my specific and fair question: what percentage of jobs will attract an increase in national insurance contributions?
In October, the Department for Business and Trade helpfully provided a sectoral breakdown, by company size and number of jobs, under each category. It is fairly simple maths to come out with a reasonable estimate. This is in the interests of transparency; I am not trying to nail the Government here. Everyone should be able to understand across our economy, as we all share an interest in trying to generate economic growth, how many jobs are impacted. “Working people” is a favourite phrase that we keep hearing; how many of their jobs will be impacted?
If the Minister cannot produce the figures today, which I would respect, I request just a few minutes of research between the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade. I believe that these figures could be produced very simply and that they would be very helpful in looking at the impact of this Bill. I cannot understand the resistance to it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his follow-up points. As I have said, we are not able to provide him with those figures and that remains the position.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I asked for an impact assessment on the National Security and Investment Bill, and none was forthcoming, but this is in respect not to tax but to social security. Therefore, there are no precedents.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Lord. The previous Government’s health and social care levy is a very direct precedent.
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a farmer.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that farms would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 66 in my name. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. Much in my general points will have been said by many others previously.
Farmers provide a vital role in the country. They grow crops, keep stock, protect land and have engaged with the change from BPS to ELMS, with many farmers seeing biodiversity on their farms increase as a result. Farming is not a career choice for the faint-hearted. The early, dark and cold mornings, the late nights at harvest time and a seven-day week, often for 52 weeks of the year, take their toll. But farmers are essential to food supply.
Amendment 7 is intended for farmers who, on a small farm with a low income, still have to pay national insurance, as would any other low-wage employers. The vast majority of farm businesses are small, with a farmer and a small number of family members. These family members are either paid employees on PAYE or partners in the family business, which pulls them into self-employment and payment of NI through that route.
Class 2 contributions are at a flat rate and used to be charged on self-employed people. From April 2024, self-employed people no longer have to pay them. The self-employed farmer therefore does not have to pay class 2 contributions, but has to pay class 4 contributions on their profits—if there are any.
The next group of farmers employs a small number of people—one or two workers—on PAYE with the usual NI implications. Some farmers with a small number of workers employ the workers as contractors, who work on multiple farms during the season or week. I ask the Minister whether some farms might actually see a saving in NI contributions, as the threshold for small businesses was increased. Would this help the sole or family farmer?
There is, of course, another group of large farms that employ significant numbers of people, many of which will be impacted by the NI increases: dairy farms; horticultural businesses; pig and poultry enterprises; and large arable and livestock farms. These larger farms are profitable and may be able either to absorb the additional cost of the NI rise or to pass it on. It is those farms in the middle range that are likely to struggle and may not survive in their current form.
I came here this afternoon from a meeting discussing the horticulture sector. We were informed that the rise in wage rates, coupled with the NI contributions rise, will cost members of Horticultural Trades Association £134 million. This was causing considerable concern around how the industry would cope. The Horticultural Trades Association has a considerable number of garden centres in its membership.
I shall now move on to Amendment 66. My very real concerns are for those in the food supply chain. In the meat industry, ignoring retail, the total additional cost is in the order of £160 million a year: £60 million is down to wage increases and £100 million to national insurance. In some supply chains, employment costs are huge. For example, in the beef industry, the cost of labour on a farm to produce cattle is not in itself huge but the labour costs in killing, processing and transporting the cattle and meat are significant. The national insurance change for employers and employees in the supply chain will put financial pressure on these businesses, which include meat processors, vegetable packers and dairy processors. The costs imposed on them will inevitably trickle down to the farm gate as the supply chain looks to recover the money from farmers.
The same can be said for retailers. Farmers will be squeezed. Retailers are not making money on basic foodstuffs; they make their money on cornflakes, cereals and similar products. There will be huge pressure on food prices and food supply chains. Some businesses—mainly the medium-sized operations—will go under. The larger ones will pass on the increase and survive. The smaller farmer, by adding value and providing niche products, may survive. The small business threshold is helpful. Such businesses often employ only one person; the national insurance goes down in this case.
The employment costs on most family farms are not the big cost. Apart from in the meat industry, where costs are in the supply chain, the other farming sections with large on-farm costs include dairy farms and those engaged in horticulture. In the latter case, workers who plant crops then pick them when they are ripe represent a significant cost. Not all crops can be harvested by machinery. There will always be a role for a real person to be involved in the horticultural side of produce—often a seasonal worker.
When making an alteration to the financial employment arrangements, which could have a significant impact on those employed, it is always prudent to review the impact of the policy change. It will not be acceptable to say at a later date, “Oh, we didn’t realise how this change would affect certain sections of society”. Amendment 66 asks for a review of the effect on farming, which includes those in the supply chain as well as those working on farms. The effect of the increase in national insurance is going to be considerable; a review will be essential to measuring the impact accurately. I realise that the Minister is not engaged in farming, but I hope that he will be able to make the case for these two amendments to his colleagues in the Treasury. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 36 in my name. I declare my interests as a farmer and an employer. I have already spoken about a lot of what is relevant to this amendment in an earlier stage, so I will spare your Lordships from any repetition.
Farming is a difficult business with unpredictable factors that do not appear in every business: weather; insect life; the ability of animals to damage themselves, and so on. Of course, the most difficult thing of all is the uncertainty of what they will receive for their product. Commodity prices vary greatly, not only from year to year but in the time between the planting and harvesting of a crop. The Government have already hit farmers with the 20% inheritance tax on agricultural land. To burden them now with an increase in national insurance contributions is brutal.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 50 in my name, which would increase the employment allowance for farms from £10,500 to £20,000 and help to ease the very real cash-flow problems that many farmers now face. I would like to understand both the cost to the Exchequer and the plans that the Government have to ease pressures on the farming industry. This is vital to increasing self-sufficiency in food in these troubling international times.
I speak with some knowledge of the Wiltshire countryside, where I was brought up and retain a small and partial interest, set out in the register, in a couple of fields, let to a neighbour, on what was our family farm. My father’s business sadly went into insolvency in the 1960s. The farm was sold and the stock auctioned off—a very difficult day. I fear it is something that we may see more of again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, farming is not a career choice for the faint-hearted.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for tabling Amendment 36, which I fully support. It is intended to ensure that the Government publish a full impact assessment of the effect of this Bill on farms with regard to both the NICs costs and, separately, any offset for the increased employment allowance. Given the difficulties that farmers are facing on inheritance tax, fertiliser tax and the post-CAP changes to support, this is the least that the Government should do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in her compelling assessment of the squeeze on farmers, comes at the issue from a slightly different angle and suggests a review of the impact of the policy change, which is also worth considering. However, we would have to wait six months, by which time decisions on NICs, IHT and the fertiliser tax might be irreversible.
It has been made abundantly clear by now that this Government do not understand the importance of Britain’s farmers. The 2024 Labour Party manifesto claimed:
“Labour recognises that food security is national security”,
yet, since entering into Government, they have demonstrated the opposite. The Autumn Budget included a multitude of measures that will hammer farmers. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief could affect 33.5% of all farm holdings in the UK, according to the Treasury’s own figures. The vast majority in terms of numbers are small, family-run farms and, as we have discussed elsewhere, the Government need to think again about the right IHT thresholds.
The Government have also introduced carbon pricing on imported fertilisers through the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will increase the cost of fertiliser that farms depend on to ensure adequate crop yields—up from approximately £25 a tonne to £75 a tonne. They have axed the rural services delivery grant introduced by the previous Government, meaning that rural councils will have less money to tackle the issues facing farms and rural communities. Given the already exorbitant costs facing farms, these measures could lead many to ruin. That goes back to my own experience in the 1960s and the excellent points made in the debate led by my noble friend Lord Leicester in December.
Above all, the proposals are putting a chill on rural communities, which are asking themselves why they elected so many Labour MPs and are writing to them, or getting on their tractors, to explore their discontent.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Kramer, which require impact assessments of this Bill on farms.
The Government, of course, recognise and greatly value the important role played by the farming sector. We carefully consider the impact of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. Indeed, as we have previously debated, an assessment of the policy has already been published by HMRC in the tax information and impact note, including impacts on the Exchequer, the economy, individuals, households, families, equalities, businesses including civil society organisations, and details of monitoring and evaluation. Further, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, growth and inflation. The Government have, therefore, already set out the impacts of this policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and previous changes for taxation, and the Government do not intend to publish further impact assessments.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Kramer, seeking to exempt the salaries of farmers from the increase in employer national insurance, and the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeking to increase the employment allowance for persons employed on farms. This amendment would reduce the revenue raised from this Bill and require either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I also note that creating new thresholds or rates based on the sector of a business would introduce distortion and additional complexity into the tax system.
Despite the difficult fiscal situation, the farming and countryside programme budget has been protected at £5 billion across the across the next two years. This includes the largest ever proportion of the Budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history. This will accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector, support investment in farm businesses and boost Britain’s food security. The Secretary of State for Defra has also set out the Government’s long-term vision to make farming more profitable. This includes reforms such as using the Government’s purchasing power to buy British food, planning reforms to speed up the delivery of farm buildings and other infrastructure that support food production, and work to ensure supply chain fairness.
For the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. The impact assessment needs to go further than farms and cover the supply chain. I am sure he will be aware of that in six months’ time. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.
Amendment 36 of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is also about making an assessment of the impact of the rise in national insurance. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about raising the employment allowance to £20,000. I have some sympathy with that.
I am disappointed that the Minister is unable to agree to my amendment, which would make a considerable difference to small farms. However, I can see that he is not going to change his mind, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Altrincham
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a person employing an individual who is aged under 21.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is—(a) 13.8% in respect of any employees under the age of 21 at the start of the tax year;(b) 15% in respect of all other employees.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that employers would continue to pay the current rate of National Insurance for staff under the age of 21.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 9, 10 and 11 concern young people, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for adding her name to the former.
In previous groups of amendments, we discussed economic forecasting and the estimates made by the Government and the OBR, which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referenced, and some of the predictions that surround this policy. The predictions estimate that, in aggregate, 50,000 jobs may be lost. These three amendments concern hundreds of thousands of young people—actual real people; they are not in aggregate in any way. They are a particularly vulnerable part of the current employment market, because hundreds of thousands of young people are not in work, and the numbers are getting worse.
Last summer, 870,000 young people aged 18 to 24 were not in employment, education or training. To give a sense of proportion to the number of 870,000, it is more than one whole cohort. Most of us in this Room were born in much larger cohorts, but the cohort sizes for people in their 20s are around 700,000. The number of NEETs in that group—people who are currently not in employment—is more than one whole cohort’s worth, and that is the age group that should otherwise be in secondary or higher education. Unemployment, which is obviously measured differently, is already running at 12% for people in their 20s. So we are talking about an exceptionally vulnerable group of people in the population, who are currently struggling to enter the market for jobs and who need either part-time work or a first job; they are not doing too well. This policy is coming in at a time when there is a very large number of very vulnerable young people.
Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that individuals under the age of 21 will continue to pay the current national insurance rate of 13.8%. This amendment inserts a provision into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 defining a “specified employer” as one who employs individuals aged under 21 at the start of the tax year. This is a useful and proactive measure for two key reasons. First, it supports employers in taking on young workers without an additional financial burden. Secondly, it helps young people gain the experience they need to start their careers, thus addressing the long-term challenges they face in the job market. Before I move to Amendment 10, bear in mind that this amendment concerns people who are 21 and under. I ask noble Lords to pause for a second to reflect on that part of the population. We are asking for a little caution in approaching people who are 21 and under, who are often looking for their first job.
Amendment 10 extends the benefit to those who are under the age of 25, further strengthening this approach. Under this amendment, employers would pay a reduced rate of 13.8% for employees under 25, while the standard 15% rate would apply to employees above this age. The reduced national insurance rate lowers the overall cost of employing younger workers, making it more affordable for businesses to offer opportunities to this age group. This is especially important for small and medium-sized enterprises, which may have limited resources and may not have been able to participate in various apprenticeship schemes. By extending this financial benefit, we would help to create more opportunities for young people, while also supporting businesses that are committed to developing the next generation of workers. Again, I ask noble Lords to pause to reflect that we are talking about people who are 25 and under, and to consider the essential intergenerational unfairness of landing this tax rise on people in this age group.
The third amendment, Amendment 11, extends the beneficial approach even further by including young adults under the age of 28. Under this amendment, employers would pay a reduced national insurance rate of 13.8% for employees under the age of 28, while the standard rate of 15% would apply to all those above that age. In supporting Amendment 11, we are not just addressing youth unemployment but making a statement about the importance of providing young people with the opportunity to gain the experience that they need to build a successful career and contribute meaningfully to the economy.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, these amendments address very important issues. As noble Lords who attended the Committee last week will be aware, we on these Benches have taken an approach to the Bill aiming to exclude certain sectors from the Government’s rise to employers’ national insurance contributions—sectors that we feel will be particularly impacted by the change.
The amendments in this group follow the same structure as our earlier amendments, exempting employers of young people in various age groups from the proposed rise in employers’ national insurance contributions. We touched at least tangentially on that and on some of the concerns raised about youth employment when we debated amendments last week, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kramer, relating to part-time workers and to the hospitality and tourism sectors. For many young people, part-time work is the entry point into the world of work. A career in hospitality is often the first step on the career ladder for many young people entering the job market.
According to data commissioned by that well-known authority, the British Beer & Pub Association, pubs currently provide jobs for more under-25s than they ever did, with 350,000 people in employment in that sector. The association estimates that, to keep employing that same number of under-25 year-olds, the NICs liability for employers will increase from £82 million to £153 million.
I shall not repeat the points made in our debate last week, but I urge the Minister to address further some of the possible unintended consequences that the measures in this Bill might result in, as employers in these sectors look at ways in which to offset the additional costs that they will have to endure—perhaps instituting hiring freezes or freezing pay rates—and especially and specifically the impact that will have on young people seeking to enter employment for the first time. An impact assessment would have been very helpful, as would the application of the mechanism contained in Amendment 33 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which we discussed earlier this evening.
In the regrettable absence of an impact assessment, it would be entirely proper to postpone the NIC provisions until the Government make more age threshold granular data available to help to assess the effect of the measure on young people. I heard the Minister’s unequivocal refusal to provide any more impact assessments, and I expect that we will hear it again in Committee and on Report.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I want to add to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Altrincham in introducing these amendments. He spoke of a large number of young people who are not in economic activity, full-time education or training. Labour market statistics are notoriously difficult to interpret, as we know, but, if you take the unemployment rate he quoted—around 14%—we know that, in addition, a worryingly large number of people in this age group are also on long-term sickness benefits. All of them could be in productive work, with the right support and encouragement.
A number of Members of this Committee are also members of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which recently did a review of this area. Some of the evidence that we took made the point that, once a young person moves on to long-term benefits without ever having had meaningful employment experience, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to get work. They become stranded in a benefit life, which is not only wasteful for them but a huge cost to the taxpayer.
In stressing the importance of making it economically attractive for employers to take on young workers such as these, I wonder whether the Government should consider going further than these amendments: not just retain the existing levels of national insurance contributions for employers for this age group but reduce the national insurance contributions of young workers to give an additional incentive to help them, at this early stage in their lives, into a meaningful working career.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seek to exempt the salaries of young people from the increase in employer national insurance.
An employer national insurance relief is already available for the earnings of those aged under 21 and for apprentices aged under 25, meaning that employers are not required to pay national insurance contributions up to £50,270 for these groups. Despite the challenging fiscal inheritance that this Government faced, we are maintaining these important reliefs for under-21s and apprentices under 25; they are not changing as a result of this Bill. Creating other thresholds and rates based on the age of staff would add additional complexity to the tax system. These amendments would introduce new pressures that would have to be met by more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, mentioned NEETs. I completely agree with him, but the situation that this Government inherited is completely unacceptable. That is why, at the Budget, the Government announced £240 million to fund 16 pilot projects across England and Wales in order to improve the support available to the economically inactive, the unemployed and people who want to develop their careers. This will include eight youth guarantee pilots to test new ways of supporting young people into employment or training.
It is also why, in the spring, the Government will bring forward a welfare reform Green Paper. I have read with interest the proposals mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, from the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House; I hope that many of them will feature in that Green Paper. For now, given the points that I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage until 6 April 2026 (after which the relevant percentage is as determined by the rest of this subsection);”. (A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a charity.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I tabled my Amendment 11A after our extensive discussion, on the previous day of Committee, about the impact of the national insurance rise on charities. As I prefaced in my presentation last time, it started with a CEO of a significant charity, who came to me and said, “If we could have one year to sort things out first, we would just about be able to cope with this, but the speed with which this increase in costs is happening is more than we can cope with”.
I apologise that there is no Member’s explanatory statement on this amendment—that is entirely my fault—but I lay out for clarity that it is intended to delay, for charities, the increase in the employers’ national insurance contribution by one year.
It is interesting that, earlier today, I was hosting an event launching a report on debanking in Muslim charities and its impact on charitable activities. There was much discussion at this event about the many difficulties that charities currently face, but the top one that was listed—after the issue under discussion—was the national insurance rise and the speed with which it is hitting charities.
I note some of the figures around this. The sector has said that the cost to charities will be about £1.4 billion. Research from 400 charities by the Charity Finance Group shows that 87% are concerned about being able to afford this increase. Some 27% of organisations running charity shops say that this increase is likely to result in closures of charity shops; those are the Charity Retail Association’s figures. We are often concerned about what is happening on our high streets, and there is perhaps concern about the dominance of charity shops, but if they close, we will just have even more empty shops on our high streets—as well as the loss to charities in terms of the services they provide and the funds raised.
Let me give one example of this, which was reported by ITV. The CEO of the Little Miracles charity, which helps 50,000 families that have children with life-limiting disabilities, said that this measure will cost that charity a minimum of £24,000. It is a small local charity with about 670 volunteers, so finding that sum of money is a really big challenge for that organisation.
It is worth noting that one of the reports from the West Lothian Voluntary Sector Gateway told the local council:
“This wholly unexpected cost will inevitably place additional financial pressures on already stretched Third Sector and social enterprises locally”.
That unexpected, sudden arrival is really the issue there. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations wrote to the Chancellor. In response to its suggestion that charities should be exempted, Rachel Reeves said:
“The government has committed to provide support for … public sector employers”,
given the rising costs, but for no one other than the public sector. It is worth considering that the combination of austerity and ideology has meant that, for many services, the slack in much of the provision that used to be picked up by public services has now been picked up by the charitable sector. It is then being hit again with this cost.
This amendment is quite moderate and small-scale. I do not have the capacity but perhaps the Minister could tell us what the one-year cost would be. I note what the cost will be if charities have to deal with this sudden increase in costs when they are facing so many other pressures. I beg to move.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 32. I refer your Lordships to my registered interests, in particular my roles with charities. The purpose of my amendment is to deal with the huge concerns we are hearing from across the sector and elsewhere, as the noble Baroness just mentioned, as well as the impact of the increase in employers’ national insurance on both the charity and voluntary sectors and the services that they deliver.
The sector is telling us that these increases will force many to reduce staff, cut salaries, scale back their services and, in some cases, consider closure. The increases will adversely affect the support that they give to people and their communities, which is why my amendment asks for the much-needed impact assessment. Had the Government already prepared the impact assessment—and I do not accept that the impact note to which the Minister has referred provides the evidence needed—they might already have accepted the need to make exceptions to the charitable sector.
Many noble Lords have spoken with passion about the negative effect of the increases in national insurance on the charitable sector. I am very aware that the Government have not been able to move on any of the requests at the moment. At the risk of repetition, up and down the country the voluntary sector is feeling the strain. Its representatives, such as the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, the NCVO, have already voiced concerns in their open letter to the Chancellor, highlighting that this increase will add an additional £1.4 billion in unwelcome and unsustainable costs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I spoke in respect of small businesses and, as the Minister will have detected, I was upset about the effect that the NI increases will have on small businesses. I would not say that I am upset about the effect that it will have on charities: I am angry and disappointed. The Labour Government have dramatically let down charities and they should know better. The total increased cost of employers’ NIC is estimated at £1.4 billion a year to the charity sector alone. Those are not my figures; they are from the highly respected aforementioned NCVO, with which I have worked in the past.
I have done a lot of work in the charity sector. I formed the committee to look at fundraising abuses, working with the NCVO, from which the fundraising regulator came about. I chair four charities in the United Kingdom. I work for a number of other charities, as indeed do other noble Lords in this Room.
For example, every year I run 10 miles for WaterAid. One of the noble Lords present in this Room supports me, for which I am grateful. Every year, I raise £50,000. I have raised £0.5 million for WaterAid in total. The entire benefit of my fundraising for WaterAid has been wiped out by the national insurance increase. The whole purpose of the fundraising for so many people is wasted, gone, because the money has gone to the Government for the purpose of raising revenue, which I understand is perfectly reasonable. But surely the Government could be more intelligent and sympathetic to charities in seeking to raise revenue. I know that the Minister is driven by empirical statistics.
Baroness Sater (Con)
Can I just follow up the point that my noble friend raised about fundraising? When we start to lose staff and people in the charity sector, and in charities as a whole—charities are people, after all—we will not have the ability to raise the funds that were assisting the Government to provide services. So it is a double whammy: charities will not only lose money through paying increased national insurance but lose money that they would fundraise to help support them.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Sater for underlining my point. It is exactly that. People will turn to me and ask, “Well, why should I give to you, Lord Leigh, and your fundraising efforts, because the Government are going to take away much more?”
According to the Charity Commission website, there are 5,435 charities with an income between £0.5 million and £1 million. On average, they make a surplus of just over £13,000 and employ about 12 people. So the increased cost caused by the raise in the NI for people on the minimum living wage, which is a large proportion of such people, will be £997. There are some heroic assumptions in this, but it is not unreasonable to say that the cost to these charities, on average, will be just over £12,000, which wipes out almost their entire surplus.
I accept that those charities will receive employment benefits, so let us look at some of the larger charities. There are 6,000 charities in the £1 million to £5 million range. Interestingly, they raise a total of £13 billion and spend a total of £12 billion, most of which is on salaries. On average, they employ some 35 people and the surplus is just over £19,000. The extra cost to them will be £35,000, which will not just wipe out their entire surplus but push them into deficit.
There are only 1,200 charities with income in the £5 million to £10 million range, and they employ an average of 104 people, so the extra cost to them of the NI burden is £103,000. Their average surplus is £47,900. Once again, their surplus will be completely wiped out and, thanks to the imposition of these extra costs, they will make a loss.
As my noble friend Lady Sater said, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor, and I note that its letter was signed not just by the NCVO but by 7,360 charities. It employs over 1 million people. Charities deliver benefits to the public sector of some £17 billion a year, so this is distressing, to say the least. My noble friend raised a number of specific charities; she mentioned a local Age UK, with which I do not have any connection. Age UK states:
“This particularly impacts organisations that employ significant numbers of low paid staff … Local Age UKs are warning that these changes will significantly impact their ability to provide essential services to vulnerable older people, particularly in underserved areas”.
In turn, this will have
“a knock-on effect on older people’s health and wellbeing, increasing demands on our already hard-pressed health and social care services”.
I made the point earlier—it was a political point—that the Labour Front Bench does not have as much business experience as it might, although it has many other attributes and qualities. It has a strong and close connection and experience with the charitable sector; there is a good relationship. So why on earth would the Government not accept these amendments to help the charitable sector and save it from these disastrous costs?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Will the noble Lord comment on a different service that charities provide? For instance, my think tank has often been contacted by government departments asking to have a run of research on, say, intellectual disability and its cost. When I ask the official why they want that, they say, “It would be a very good study, but we couldn’t do it for less than—”, and they tell me the astronomical sum of money that it would cost them to do the same study.
Time and time again, we have demands for all kinds of work, which we have done and published, because we can do it, and we can get the best people to do it. People will give their expert advice and analysis for free. The Government, of whatever complexion, will then benefit. Why have this Government and other Labour Governments not done this? It is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Of course, I do not think for moment that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on the Front Bench opposite, does not have business experience, but charities save taxpayers money and provide the Government with many different types of services.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for that. One of the four charities that I chair is a think tank, so I totally agree with her. In this country, the Charity Commissioners are particularly effective and very good at clamping down on organisations that are not proper charities. So we can be comfortable that any organisation registered with the Charity Commissioners as a charity is bona fide and generates good work, as the noble Baroness said.
I urge the Minister to have a deep think about this and consider an additional exemption for the private sector. An exemption has already been made for the public sector, so it is doable.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Sater. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.
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.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat the powerful arguments that have been made for this set of amendments, but I would like to put the argument in stark terms. What is exceptional about most charities is that they do not have the ability to raise revenue by selling more and putting up prices. Some do, but many are not commercial enterprises. In effect, since those charities can raise this money only through additional fundraising, the Government are saying to charities, “We want you to go out and solicit more contributions from philanthropists to pay for government services”. If the Government went out to the public and said, “This is what we’re going to do”, I wonder how many people would think that a sensible policy.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief, because these Benches spoke extensively on charities in an earlier grouping, where the amendment would have overturned the change that the Government are introducing. I particularly want to pick up the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because, like others, I am very conscious that, of the charities that I have talked to, a fundamental part of their problem is that they cannot turn around and respond quickly enough to a measure that is being introduced so quickly. I am not up on all the rules of the Charity Commission, but I suspect that it would frown greatly on a charity spending when there is no clear funding mechanism coming in to replenish its resources. I think that there is a requirement to have several months’ contingency on the books, so there is a real problem here for many charities in having to turn around very quickly.
One of the amendments deals with increases in the employment allowance. That runs into a problem that the Government could help us with. It is my understanding that an entity that sells 50% of its services to the public sector does not qualify for employment allowance, so there will be many charities that are excluded from any benefit that is offered under that amendment. I wonder if the Minister could help us to get a better grip on that, because I think we have all struggled with understanding the application of those rules.
My last point did not occur to me until I started reading the input from various charities. A number of charities that have been able to survive and are fairly confident about their funding will now find themselves in a position where they need to battle and compete for grants. Some of the very smallest charities are concerned that they may get excluded from the grant offering because charities with a bigger reach are now turning to those particular pots. I am not sure whether the Government considered that as they put together this picture.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
This is an interesting set of amendments, given that, in essence, through this policy the Government are looking to take £1 billion out of the charity sector to fund public services, when the charity sector obviously provides public services—so it is a uniquely baffling government initiative. We on these Benches absolutely support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on Amendment 11A and by my noble friend Lady Sater on Amendment 32.
I speak to Amendment 52, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment would increase the employment allowance for charities from £10,500 to £20,000 to assist with the burden being placed upon charities. It is a probing amendment, and I would like to understand the cost that this would have for the Treasury and the plans the Government have to support the sector with the increased costs and the rise.
The remarkable comments made by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and its estimate that this will cost the sector £1.4 billion every year, has been referenced in this debate by my noble friend Lord Leigh and others. It would leave charities in a position where they are unable to absorb the costs and will, as a result, be forced to reduce the number of services they provide. In essence, as we talked about on day 1 in Committee, these services are public services. Charities in this country have become quasi-public service providers in the last 20 years, and it is most unlikely that, in pulling back services, those services would not have to be provided by the Government elsewhere. It is therefore most unlikely that the Government will not wear the costs of this change. It is naive to assume that charities provide some other service that is not a public service or a substitute for a public service.
The Government will be well aware of the severe issues that charities are facing, following the open letter from the NCVO to express concern that three out of four charities will have to withdraw from public service delivery or are considering doing so. This is an extraordinary way to treat a sector that would provide a public service. In fact, the Government have accepted the principle that the delivery of public services should not face this tax, following the exemption of both the Civil Service and the NHS. What justification does the Minister therefore have for the exemption of some providers of public services but not charities? Charities provide close to £17 billion in public services every single year, and the services they provide are invaluable to communities across the country, so a failure to protect them would be devastating.
I support my noble friend Lady Sater’s Amendment 32 and recognise the importance of the Government fully assessing the impact that this tax increase will have on the sector. The Government owe it to charities to fully consider the impact that this will have across the sector and, as such, I hope the Government will consider both Amendments 32 and 52 very carefully as we progress.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek to maintain the rates of employer national insurance for charities at 13.8% and increase the employment allowance specifically for charities from £10,500 to £20,000. The Government of course greatly value the vital work that charities do in this country, and I have listened carefully to all the points that have been raised in this debate.
It is important to recognise that all charities benefit from the employment allowance, which the Bill more than doubles from £5,000 to £10,500. This will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest charities. The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Is the Minister saying that there is a misunderstanding? Where charities are providing services to the public sector above 50% of their revenue, I think, they are ruled out of claiming employment allowance. I do not understand the intricacies of that, but there is something there.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That would be a misunderstanding, yes. I just repeat that all charities benefit from the employment allowance, which this Bill more than doubles from £5,000 to £10,500.
The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax regime. This tax regime is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. Providing further relief for the sector would have additional cost implications and would require either more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this rich and frequently passionate debate, and I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that I will cross-reference something that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, said, which is that charities are helping vulnerable people in dreadful circumstances. We have been talking about charities as organisations and institutions, but, ultimately, at the end of the line are those vulnerable people. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, made the point that those vulnerable people will still be there with their needs; if the charity closes down or cuts back its services, the Government will have to pick up the slack at that point. The Minister said that, if any of the measures proposed in this group of amendments were introduced, the Government would have to lower spending. But that would mean that they would have to raise spending on things they are not spending on now because the charities would not be providing it. We are in a circular situation, with all the disruption that happens as people lose jobs, organisations close down and things have to be recreated. That is the situation that we are in.
There were many contributions, so I will not go through them in length, but there are a couple of points that I want to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, spoke about his brave, regular running commitments. To build on what he said, we know that what encourages people to give to charities is the sense that their money will be directly used to help the relevant people. Of course, when we are talking about something like WaterAid—speaking as someone who is passionate about antimicrobial resistance and maternal health—it is absolutely crucial. People want to see it providing the services and, if they do not see that, and they hear all the talk about this, maybe they will not donate, because they will feel like they are just giving money to the Government. That is a further damaging factor for charities and their fundraising.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, also spoke about sacking fundraisers. If one of the things that we are talking about—what my amendment aims to get to—is to delay so that charities have a chance to prepare. If there is not that delay, however, and there is an emergency that has to be dealt with now, you of course do not want to cut the direct service providers who care for those vulnerable people. Fundraisers, therefore, are the obvious people to sack, but the long-term consequences are obvious.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Does the noble Baroness agree with me that one of the other cumulative problems is the national living wage? We all agree that it should be increased to help low-paid people, but accommodating that for small charities—with an increase in national insurance charges plus the encumbrance of paying the national living wage—will be very difficult, particularly for homelessness charities, for instance. The Government’s strategic aim is to reduce homelessness, but this will put huge pressure on charities such as Crisis and Shelter.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
In responding to the noble Lord, I can only applaud the increase in the national minimum wage—indeed, I would encourage it to be significantly higher. None the less, the noble Lord’s point about the situation for charities is entirely accurate.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said something earlier—and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, backed this up—about how many ideas the Government end up delivering actually start with small, campaigning charities. They save the Government having to do the work because, when there is a problem and something really needs to be done about it, they do all the work on what needs to be done about it.
Obviously, I will withdraw my amendment at this stage, but it is clear that we will come back to this issue on Report. I am still quite dedicated to the idea of at least delaying the measure, which would not interfere with the Government’s long-term economic plans but would give charities time to adjust. On the £1.4 billion, the Government could save that much in the extra spending that they will have to make if they insist on collecting that money, so it all balances out.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I totally agree, but there will be charities going bust in the next six months. I know that we want to delay it, but there is an urgency in saying, “This is going to be really detrimental, and that knock-on effect is going to be huge”. That is why I cannot quite understand why we have not had a detailed assessment statement—and why I am asking for it—because surely this would come through in that detailed statement.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I agree with the noble Baroness and support her amendment. I have already reflected on the lack of a proper impact statement in many different areas; I would entirely back the noble Baroness’s approach. We need to understand what is happening, but we have two things here: giving charities time to deal with it, and understanding what we are doing. We may well end up coming back to both of those things on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published, noting the impact note of this policy that was published on 13 November.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his clarification on the full availability of the employment allowance in respect of charities; he agreed to look into this on day 1 of Committee. The query also related to GPs and dentists, where they were mainly involved in public work; clearly, clarity on those would be helpful too.
In moving Amendment 13, I am particularly grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Altrincham and Lady Lawlor. My amendment would require the Government to publish comprehensive impact assessments and reviews of the impact of the planned jobs tax. This is the Budget measure with much the most impact on business and the private sector. We know just how burdensome it is from the screams of business and charities. It is vital that the Government calculate and share the impact on jobs, wages, inflation and, above all, growth—the Government’s stated prime mission.
There are established procedures for impact assessments on Bills. Despite the Minister’s resistance, I believe that it is a dereliction of duty not to have provided fuller details of the Bill’s various impacts. When we debated the Bill at Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Sater, who has just left, asked the Government about plans to publish a full impact assessment. In response, the Minister said:
“The tax information and impact note was published on 13 November, alongside the legislation when it was introduced”.—[Official Report, 6/1/25; col. 602.]
I have to say, although it is now available to the Grand Committee, the Printed Paper Office had to do quite a lot of online research after Second Reading to find me a copy. Curiously, it did not seem to have been delivered to it in the normal Bill bundle.
I can understand why there was not a huge rush to make it available. I am afraid that it is a very limited document, to say the least. The note includes no detailed assessment of the impact of the national insurance charge on a number of very important areas—not even a split into three between the effect of the increase to 15%, the new threshold of £5,000 and the revenue cost of the rise in the employment allowance. There is no information on the bureaucratic costs in respect of new personnel for whom NICs will be payable. We must have more detail from the Government before this Bill is considered on Report.
I note that, in response to intense questioning from the Opposition, in a parliamentary reply the Government split the £23.7 billion cost of NICs in 2025-26 into £11.1 billion related to the rise to 15% and £17.2 billion from lowering the threshold to £5,000. This demonstrates that the biggest hit in the Budget relates to the lower paid and part-timers, groups they feign to care a lot about. That is exactly the concern of many of us, including the charities that were the focus of the last group. There is no figure given for the rise in the employment allowance, but I calculate from the available data that it will be £4.6 billion in the first year. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that, or correct me. Could he also put on record the three-way split for the five years addressed in the impact note—in a letter to the Committee, if need be?
My Amendments 13 and 26 call for an impact assessment of the Bill’s impact on jobs, wages and growth. My Amendments 62, 63 and 64 call for a separate review of the impact of this legislation on employment, as well as on jobs, wages and inflation, and another on economic growth. While the Government are leaving us in the dark on the detailed effects of their jobs tax, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the national insurance changes alone will reduce labour supply by 0.2% and add 0.2 percentage points to inflation by 2029-30. Does the Minister believe that this assessment is accurate, particularly in the light of subsequent developments and the extraordinarily negative response to the NICs changes across the country? If the Government do not accept the OBR’s figures, can the Minister tell the Committee what his own figures say about the specific impact on jobs and inflation?
At Second Reading, the Minister was also questioned about the impact on businesses. Rather than giving us a detailed answer, we heard the same line from the department that 940,000 employers will pay more in NICs contributions through the jobs tax. If the Committee is to make progress on the Bill, it would be helpful to know exactly which sectors the Treasury expects to be hit hardest and what proportion of employers in those sectors are expected to see their liabilities increase. That is what Amendment 61 requires.
The Government owe it to Parliament and employers and employees in different sectors to explain much more clearly what the effect of the jobs tax will be. Where will it bite, who will it bite, and which sectors will be worst affected? It is a long list—some have already been discussed today—but, looking forward, we are interested in GPs, dentists, social care providers, hospices, small businesses, early years care providers, universities, charities, farms, retail and hospitality. There may be others, but the NICs changes are a blunt instrument, and we need a review clause of the kind that we have seen in other Bills, because of their scale, importance and bluntness. I especially look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Lawlor on the employment aspects.
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the Government’s own Guide to Making Legislation which states:
“The final impact assessment must be made available alongside bills published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny or introduced to Parliament”.
I know that the Treasury has its own rules and does not like to be held to account on finance matters. However, given the enormous effect that the Bill will have on so many businesses, it seems inappropriate that the Government have not published a full assessment in this case, in the same way that they do with other Bills. The decision not to publish an impact assessment is hardly in line with the commitment made by the Leader of the House of Commons in a Written Answer of 17 January. This was a refreshing approach by the new Government, overtaking the practice of the previous Government. In that Answer, she wrote:
“The Government is committed to ensuring Parliament has the information it needs to hold the Government to account and to understand the impact of legislation”.
Transparency is the route to better government, and it is a pity that the full rules for impact assessment on Bills, with an independent Regulatory Policy Committee review, do not apply to the Treasury. I beg to move and look forward to other contributions.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I support her amendment. My amendments in this group are Amendment 15 to Clause 1, on the increase in the rate of secondary class 1 contributions; Amendment 37 to Clause 2, on the lowering of the threshold for secondary class 1 contributions; and Amendment 57, on increasing employment allowances and removing the £100,000 cap. They are aimed at ensuring that an adequate impact assessment is made available to both Houses of Parliament for each of the proposed changes before the Act comes into force and after it has been in operation.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly as I put my name down in support of Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I could have—indeed, I should have—done so for Amendments 61, 63 and 64 as well.
I continue to use the word “baffled” about the Government’s apparent resistance to impact assessments, which are so crucial if you are to have joined-up thinking on the Government’s economic growth strategy. As we know, rather worryingly, we lost 47,000 people off the payroll last month. I just raise this point in relation to the Government’s White Paper, Get Britain Working, which has some ambitious and laudable aims. Specifically, the headline bullet is that the aim is to take 2 million people out of welfare and into work. Put another way, the aim is to reduce the economic inactivity rate of our working-age population from the current 25% to 20%. Of course, the question is: where will those 2 million jobs come from? Who will create them? The answer is the private sector; that is the assumption.
When you come back to impact assessments, you have to ask how private sector employment will be impacted by not just the rise in national insurance contributions but the increase in the national minimum wage and the upcoming anticipated restrictions being brought in by the new Employment Rights Bill. All these factors boil down to the importance of assessment. If we have a lack of assessment, we greatly reduce the chances of the Government achieving their aims. So, again, I ask the Government to embrace accountability through Amendments 61, 62, 63 and 64.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I will make a brief comment on these amendments. In the Committee’s discussions so far, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has made great play of the fact that the OBR suggested that the overall Budget measures would increase employment. The noble Lord is not in his place but, if he were, I am sure that, as an economist, he would agree that it is important to have the right counterfactual. Of course, what the OBR was not looking at in the Budget was the exact impact of taking the £20-odd billion from the national insurance rise and spending that money. It was looking at spending a lot more money; the Government are raising expenditure by £142 billion over the next five years, in excess of what they are raising in additional taxation.
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.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. It must be galling for the Minister to sit here and be lectured by the Conservative Benches because he and I so often tried to obtain information and were consistently denied it. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why there was not a greater outcry. Everybody just got so used to being denied information.
I am sure that the Minister will also be able to cite many economic crises when information was not provided—I have to say, the silence on the Conservative Benches in not calling out for that information was very loud, if I can put it that way. I am sure that, if the Conservatives were back in government again, we would get the same absence of transparency and limitations on information. There are perhaps two honourable exceptions—the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe—who stood out against their party when every other voice was one that co-operated in that silence.
That silence was part of the reason why there was so much mistrust of the Conservative Government in the end; it was part of their undermining. As the Minister and his Government start to look at reform, which they are looking at more generally—particularly in dealing with the Civil Service—looking for opportunities for transparency would be a really positive move. With information, we stand on more secure ground. Will he consider that? I have asked him that before.
It is realistic to understand that we are unlikely to get impact assessments ahead of the actions that the Government contemplate doing in the next few weeks, or just in the next couple of months, but post reviews are at least a place to begin. They shed light, and they help both the Government and Parliament to understand where things have been effective and where they have not. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept these kinds of requests for immediate impact assessments, will he consider seriously the various requests made in other groupings for post-facto analysis and review?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall just say this briefly: we need more transparency on such a major policy change, but we are not getting it. There is a large negative impact on business and charities, which is—I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes, a fellow-in-crime in asking for impact assessments—unprecedented. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell said, we are seeing a shift in jobs from the private sector to the public sector, which we fear is bad for jobs, productivity and growth. That is why we need to find a way of getting better assessment and having a process for review.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Londesborough, have tabled amendments that seek to delay the commencement of this Act until a further impact assessment is conducted on the economy. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, has tabled an amendment that would delay commencement until a report is laid detailing the impacts on businesses of different sizes and on employment and wages.
As I have said previously, the revenue raised from the measures in this Bill will enable the Government to repair the public finances while protecting working people and rebuilding our public services, including the NHS. Delaying commencement of this Bill would put this vital revenue at risk and would require either more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. That is not the Government’s intention.
The Government do not believe that there is a need, as set out in these amendments, for further impact assessments on different sectors and economic indicators. As we have debated in previous groups today, as is the case with all tax policies, the Government have already published an assessment of the policy in the tax information and impact note. This includes impacts on the Exchequer; the economy; individuals; households and families; equalities; and businesses, including civil society organisations—as well as details on monitoring and evaluation. The tax information and impact note clearly sets out that around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 national insurance contributions liability decrease, while around 940,000 will see it increase and around 820,000 employers will see no change.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Lawlor, asked for specific additional detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked in particular for a breakdown of the three lines of each of the three measures. My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has provided that information via various Written Answers. On 29 November, he published an estimate of the cost of the increase to the employment allowance at £3.6 billion. On 23 January, he published via a parliamentary Question the estimated revenue from increasing the rate at £12.4 billion and from reducing the secondary threshold at £18.6 billion. Beyond that, the Government have set out the impact analysis of this Bill that they intend to set out, in line with previous changes to taxation, and they do not intend to publish additional data or assessments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It would be helpful if he could write to clarify these figures. There have been figures made available, but they have not been made available to the Committee. They were made available in the other place in answer to some questions. The least he could do is write to the Committee with what figures there are, explaining how the splits work and giving that helpful figure on the employment allowance.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness says that it is the least that I can do; I have actually just read out the figures to the Committee. I think that is providing the information that she asked for. If she did not hear it, I am more than happy to set it out in a letter to her so that she can read it. As I say, they have been published in Written Answers and I have just read them out to the Committee, so I am not sure that her phrase “the least I can do” is appropriate in this instance.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also said, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook already sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other tax changes, and the Government do not intend to publish further impact assessments. Given the points that I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not to press their amendments.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and two others in the name of Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest, would prevent commencement of this Act until an assessment of the impact of the policy on persons who provide transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities is published.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 14, I will also speak to Amendment 27 in my name. I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Barran for their support.
These amendments would prevent commencement of this Act until an assessment of the impact of the policy on persons who provide transport for children with special educational needs is published. Those who provide transport for people with special educational needs provide a service that is very often not understood by those who are not in that position and do not have children who have a real problem getting to school. These companies that provide daily transport to children are now facing a rise in their employment costs. It is typical for drivers and their assistants to work for three and half hours a day, which brings them into this new threshold where the increased rate of employer national insurance will apply.
The sum of £515 million previously mentioned as being put aside for councils is to offset the national insurance contributions for their own employees. This sum would not offset the indirect costs of council services delivered by private providers. Councils have a statutory duty to provide these services. If private transport is no longer financially viable because of the new rules, the councils will have to re-tender thousands of contracts. I know at first hand, from my own experience of running a charity, how long it takes even to get a normal DBS check. We will be in a situation where some children will not be able to get to school until all these checks and balances have been done and the forms have been filled in.
This transport is an absolute lifeline—I know that is a hackneyed phrase—to parents. It enables them to continue working, as they do not have to drive the frequently very long distances that some of these children have to be taken to get to the nearest school that can accommodate their needs. Some parents who live near us in East Sussex told me of the enormous difference that it has made to them as a family. Before they had access to this transport, both parents worked, but one had to stop working in order to drive the child backwards and forwards to school. However, then they got access to the transport, and the father said to me that, for the first time, he did not have to worry about his child. He could go back to work and could become the person he was before he had a disabled child. That portion of his day spent in the office was absolutely invaluable to him.
My own daughter had somebody who drove her to school every day: Terry Heseltine. I spoke to him today because what I had not realised is that 90% of his work is spent driving children with acute and complex needs to school, along with an assistant. He said to me, “For many, this is the only way that they can get to school. Most of these parents do not have cars”. These children, who are often violent and display unruly behaviour, would have no other way of getting to school. We cannot let down this group of vulnerable people and their exhausted parents. These amendments are important because the increased cost of this policy on those who provide transport for children with special educational needs could result in job losses, reduced services and an unimaginable nightmare for these children and their families. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and will speak briefly.
The Minister in the other place said that the Department for Education made an assessment of the impact of the rise in NICs on special educational needs. Bearing in mind the debate that we have already had on the lack of impact assessments, if an assessment has been made, it should be shared. We have already seen the disproportionate impact of VAT on independent schools and the impact that it is having on children with special educational needs. Again, this is tantamount to a double whammy. These children are among the most vulnerable in society.
I reflect on my time as a councillor in my local authority many years ago: the vital link and lifeline that these drivers provide, as my noble friend Lady Monckton has articulated so passionately and poignantly, are essential. I also reflect on the statement made by the Chief Secretary in the other place, which said that, when we are pursuing economic growth, these changes must permeate every element of society—I paraphrase—and every part of our country. How can impacting the most vulnerable contribute to any kind of sensible understanding of growth?
I was a Minister for a long time; perhaps that is why I am not counted alongside the dynamic duo, on my side of the Committee, of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes. I say this to the Minister: one thing that Ministers in your Lordships’ House do is listen—the Minister is doing that—but that listening also turns into action. Many vulnerable groups, including those highlighted by my noble friend, are being impacted. As a minimum, surely we need engagement at this stage. After all, that is what we are all about: scrutiny, listening, reviewing and ensuring that, when it leaves the House, legislation is in a better state than when it got here. I appeal to the Minister, as a minimum, to engage and listen to some of these groups that my noble friend highlighted. Perhaps, through his intervention, the Government will think again.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, the Committee is very much in the debt of my noble friend Lady Monckton for her having raised this important issue this afternoon, because it presents a microcosm of all the arguments around the Bill. It is a narrowly focused amendment that draws the Committee’s attention to one narrow measure—one small, but very important, part of our national life. It is therefore incumbent on the Minister to give a substantive answer, not just “We don’t do further impact assessments”, because I am not sure that there is widespread belief in the country about the impact assessment that the Treasury notes has been made. I do not believe that that gives sufficient confidence. It is a short, high-level note and, at the bottom of the electronic page, it asks, “Did you find this page helpful: yes or no?” I think that most Members of the Committee would reply in the negative.
It is important for the Minister to listen to an illustration of the effect that this Bill will have, as we have heard in previous groups of amendments, on the wider growth of our economy as well as on extremely vulnerable people, as was illustrated by my noble friend’s amendments. I very much look forward to the Minister’s detailed and substantive answer.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 67, which stands in my name. It is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, whose names were not entered in time for the Marshalled List.
I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, said in support of Amendments 14 and 27, in her name, and others concerning the provision of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities—many years ago, my identical twin brother was one of them. My amendment has the same intention, albeit a slightly different effect.
When I raised my concern at Second Reading, the Minister, in response, referred to both the increased settlement overall for local government in the coming financial year and to the extra £515 million to cushion local authorities against the impact of national insurance changes. I wrote to the Minister on 10 January about my concern that such funding did not cover contracted-out services, and I have yet to receive a reply—hence my amendment, which is now before the Grand Committee.
The Local Government Association on 28 November stated that the measures that the Government seeks
“will lead to a £637 million increase in councils’ wage bills for directly employed staff, and up to £1.13 billion through indirect costs via external providers including up to £628 million for commissioned adult social care services”.
It is therefore clear that the concerns that I laid before your Lordships’ House on 6 January are well founded and remain current.
The transport provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities is, of necessity, a very labour-intensive one. It also requires dedicated recruitment, since not any driver will do, and in some cases a passenger assistant is also required. As we have heard, the children involved place enormous value on continuity and trust. Hence, it is key that they trust the staff who serve them in this way and, once that trust is established, that these are the people with whom they routinely deal. It is hard to describe the anguish that will result if contracts become unviable, or the additional pressures this will place on parents. There will be inevitable breaks in education, which can easily affect the rest of an individual’s life.
Noble Lords resident in North Yorkshire, the West Riding, north Lincolnshire or South Yorkshire may have seen the regional news bulletin, “ITV Calendar (North)”, on 22 January, just a few days ago. Its first and main news item was this very issue, setting out, with some of the people affected, what the impact would be. It is hard not to sympathise with, for example, the bewilderment of the mother of a mute child at the very real likelihood of the loss of her son’s provision.
I accept that Governments take tough decisions and that there is a burden to public service borne by those who serve us in this way. However, in this instance, the chief burden and distress—the overwhelming hardship—will be borne by SEND children and their parents. As this is a situation brought into being by the Government, it is appropriate to look to His Majesty’s Government for a solution, and I would be happy not to press the amendment if they were to proffer a remedy such as ring-fenced funding.
Unlike Amendments 14 and 27, my amendment, which requires the Government to review and estimate the impact on the SEND transport sector in each of three tax years, and to state what remedy might be applied, includes the ameliorating provisions of Clause 3. However, as your Lordships will have established and the Minister knows, that clause will not be the remedy here. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I rise briefly to offer the Green group’s support for all these amendments. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate’s amendment gives the Government a way forward that does not interfere with the general progress of the Bill but any of these would do.
I am going to make two quick points. First, I note the briefing I received from the chair of the Licensed Private Hire Car Association’s SEND group, setting out the points that have been made on how it is desperately concerned and the chaos that this national insurance rise has the potential to cause it.
Secondly, I point out that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is in the other place. There, the Government are trying to deal with, help and support children with special educational needs and disabilities, and their parents, through that Bill. Then we have this Bill, which is undoing, and creating further risks and damage. It is useful to set those two against each other. In your Lordships’ House, we often hear expert testimony about how difficult life is for children with special educational needs and disabilities and, of course, their families and parents. This is—I am going to use an informal term—such a no-brainer to sort out.
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)
Problem solved; I am back in my place. Those are the only comments that I wanted to make.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendments 14 and 27, tabled so movingly by my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, and Amendment 67, spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, with additional and disturbing evidence on this vital issue. I am sorry that my noble friend, Lady Barran, who leads for the Opposition on education, is not able to be here. She is detained elsewhere. But I know she is concerned, as one would expect, about the thousands of SEND children who might be left without transport. The amendments concern transport providers for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The providers play a pivotal role in ensuring that children with special educational needs and disabilities can access education and other vital services.
A way must be found in the Bill or elsewhere to deal with the devastating impact on those transporting such children. Most of those drivers, as we have heard, work only 3.5 hours a day, according to the SEND group of the Licensed Private Hire Car Association. They will be caught by the lower NICs threshold, which we have been discussing in other amendments.
The potential impact is not a hypothetical concern; it is another good example of the perverse effects that we are seeing. Mencap, a charity that supports such individuals and families with these disabilities, has shown that the rise in national insurance contributions could force it to close at least 60 of its essential services. Those include running residential services for people with learning disabilities, offering advice on issues such as education and employment, as well as offering support for carers, a very important matter. This charity is facing an additional £5.3 million in annual costs due to the effects of the Budget.
I ask the Minister to look into the various points that have been made today, to undertake a proper assessment of the impact and cost to the sector, and to come forward with amendments or other concessions to ensure that transport providers are not put in a position where they can no longer meet the needs of these vulnerable children—that would be wrong.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed today. I have of course listened very carefully to all the points made.
I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Barran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark about the impact of the Bill on persons who provide transport for children with special education needs and disabilities. I will endeavour to get the right reverend Prelate an answer to his letter as quickly as possible; I apologise to him for not having replied sooner.
The Government of course carefully consider the impact of their policies, including these changes to employer national insurance. As I noted previously, an assessment of the policy has already been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note.
On the specific issue of the provision of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities, the Government are committed to improving provision in mainstream state schools, while also ensuring that state special schools can cater to those with the most complex needs. At the Budget, the Government announced a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding, and £740 million into creating more inclusive specialist places in mainstream schools and undertaking the adaptations that may be required in mainstream schools to make them more accessible. The aim is to reduce the cost of transport, because far too many children are being transported to other local authorities, over a large distance and time, as they cannot be educated locally.
There are several ways in which a local authority can fulfil its requirements to provide free school transport to eligible children, including those with special educational needs, disabilities or mobility problems. At the Budget and as part of the recent provisional local government finance settlement, the Government announced over £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. This includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions.
This £515 million of additional funding has been determined based on a national assessment of the costs for directly employed staff across the public sector. However, this funding is unring-fenced, and it is for local authorities to determine how to use this funding across relevant services and responsibilities. This is part of an overall increase in additional grant funding for local authorities in 2025-26 of over £2 billion, resulting in an estimated 3.5% real-terms increase in core spending power.
Given the points I have set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the thoughtful contributions to this debate, and I thank the Minister for his comments. I urge him to consider the amendments we have been debating and to understand the essential services provided by the SEND transport sector. It is wonderful that he is putting more money into the schools, but if these children cannot get there, it will not really work. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.