National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
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 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 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.
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.
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.