National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

Committee (2nd Day)

16:15

Clause 1: Rate of secondary Class 1 contributions

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

6: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end 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 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.

16:30

As we know, there is no impact assessment with this Bill. It is a well-accepted principle that, when the Government put forward legislation, they are expected to make sure that Parliament has the information it needs to scrutinise the legislation. The Leader of the House in the other place recently wrote, in response to a Written Question:

“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. When a bill is published the Explanatory Notes include information regarding any financial implications”.

The Explanatory Notes refer to the tax information and impact note, which we discussed on our first day in Committee. I do not think that any noble Lord who commented on the note then, other than the Minister, regarded it as remotely adequate, because it simply did not give sufficient analysis of the impact of the Bill. The Minister bravely called the note a detailed assessment and asserted that the Government would not publish anything else. That is no way to treat Parliament.

I believe that a full impact analysis should have been prepared, given the potential impact of the national insurance changes on employment costs and levels, prices, profit margins, and of course growth. All the business groups are saying that the impact of the national insurance changes on businesses will be significant and negative. There will be impacts on many businesses of all sizes, but in particular, as we have heard, on small and medium-sized businesses, which are what my amendment focuses on. The OBR has made calculations of the direct and indirect effects of the Bill, to work out the benefit to the public finances. However, as we debated on the first day in Committee, that analysis is at a macro level and does not cast light at all on the impact on different sizes or types of businesses.

HMRC has given numbers, which the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, cited earlier; they are regularly trotted out by Ministers to give the impression that the impact of these changes is rather benign because of the large numbers that will either have no impact or make some gain. However, we have no more granular analysis than these three large numbers. I am fairly sure that the HMRC numbers do not factor in the increases to the national living wage, which, especially for younger workers, will have a very big impact when that uplifts wages, and therefore on the amount of national insurance that will be collected. I am sure that the figure of 250,000 that will be affected is an understatement, but we have no way of telling because we do not know any of the assumptions underlying the numbers that we have been given.

It is a bit difficult to make sense of the HMRC figures. They add up to a little over 2 million employers paying secondary national insurance contributions. The most recent ONS survey data, from January last year, shows that the total business population includes 5.5 million businesses, of which 4.1 million are sole traders —or at least they have no employees, so we presume that they are sole traders. That leaves only 1.4 million businesses with employees, rather than the 2 million in the HMRC analysis.

I do not know what the cause of that is—it may be to do with incorporated sole traders, but we do not have any information. Could the Minister shed any light on those figures and tell us whether any further analysis can be shared with the Committee? In particular, I want to ask the Minister whether there is any further analysis of the 250,000 businesses that are expected to pay more national insurance contributions as a result of the Bill. According to the ONS data, there were 264,000 businesses with more than nine employees, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that most employers in the category of those who will be affected negatively by this Bill are employers in businesses with more than nine employees. That means that huge numbers of small and medium-sized businesses are caught by the changes, with, at best, only micro-businesses escaping a negative impact.

I have tabled my Amendment 33 simply to try to find out the impact on different sizes of business, through three categories of turnover—£1 million, £5 million and £10 million. The £1 million aligns with the new Companies Act definition of a micro-business. According to the ONS analysis of businesses, as amplified by Department for Business and Trade data, businesses that have between one and nine employees have an average turnover of only £600,000, well below the Companies Act micro-business level. The next category, which is the 10 to 49 employees range, has an average turnover of £3.5 million, so all those plus some more would fall into my £5 million threshold. The £10 million threshold would include a fair chunk, but by no means all, of the larger categories of SMEs. That is really what we need to try to find beneath the analysis. I do not much mind whether we get analysis by number of employees or by turnover bands; the important thing is that the Government analyse and publish the effect on different sizes of business.

There is a good reason to focus on smaller enterprises, even though these changes impact all sizes of business—mainly because smaller businesses find it so much tougher to cope with additional costs, because they have far fewer options. Having a smaller workforce, of, say, 12 to 15 employees, makes it hard to implement changes involving staff cost savings without impacting operational effectiveness. We know the category of these businesses with fewer employees is where we find start-ups, which we hope will eventually get themselves through to scaling up, because that is what we require for growth to come through to the economy. If we are harming these businesses at the beginning of their lives, that will have a knock-on effect on the growth of the UK.

We need a lot of questions answered about what is happening in those segments of the business community. If the Government have that sort of analysis, they really ought to share it with Parliament. Indeed, if they have the analysis, and if they get their skates on and publish it fairly promptly, my amendment would not even delay the implementation of the national insurance changes. If they cannot provide the analysis, however, the Government need to ask themselves whether they are right to pursue this policy choice without understanding the detailed impacts—and Parliament needs to consider whether the Bill should come into effect in an information void.

[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.

16:45

Only recently, Ineos closed its ethanol refinery plant in Grangemouth, losing 80 jobs directly and a further 500 indirectly. Sir Jim Ratcliffe argued that high energy costs and carbon taxes are destroying the chemical industry in this country. Ineos commented that energy costs are five times higher in Britain than in the USA. How can British industry survive in the face of this and other government-inspired difficulties? It cannot. I just hope that the Government will wake up to this while there is still something left.

Another reason why the impact assessment is needed for smaller businesses is the increase in the minimum wage, which I spoke about at Second Reading. This not only affects those on minimum wage but has a significant impact on salaries at all levels. Your skilled worker will wish to maintain the difference in salary from less-skilled workers; he or she will wish to keep the differential that learning more difficult skills and hard work have achieved. With sophisticated computer-controlled machinery nowadays, greater knowledge and technical ability is required on the factory floor than is commonly supposed or has previously been the case.

Against the background of these and many other burdens, the Government now propose to increase national insurance paid by employers. The cost of this compounds as the salary increases triggered by the minimum wage come into play. The proposed increase in national insurance for employers of 1.2% is on top of those pay increases. It is just worth pointing out that, although everybody talks about 1.2%, in fact the increase in employers’ national insurance is nearer to 9%. All businesses will suffer from this increase. Only last week, Sainsbury’s announced massive redundancies, and there is a steady stream of reports of other similar but less headline-grabbing redundancies.

As I said earlier, this is particularly onerous for smaller businesses, where their size limits their ability to cope with and adjust to this extra cost. In some cases, it will be the final straw and a business will close. The impact assessment is urgent. As this very moment, many boardrooms will be considering whether to continue manufacturing in this country or whether it would be better to import from abroad, where they can buy the product for less than the cost of manufacturing here.

Our competitors overseas do not have to carry the burdens that I have mentioned, nor many others that I have not mentioned. Nor do they have to face the many rules and regulations, a lot of which—however well intentioned—do more harm than good, and act as a ball and chain on virtually all aspects of industry and commerce in this country, from banking to the smallest one-man band.

Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, commented that the OBR has a less pessimistic view of the effect of the proposed increase in national insurance for employers than has frequently been expressed. The OBR, in my view, has the outstanding ability consistently to get things wrong and still be treated with respect and admiration and referred to in hushed tones. It is an act of genius—how does it manage to achieve this when its forecasts are so frequently more wrong than right?

One should not forget how this tax—and, au fond, national insurance is a tax—will have a detrimental effect. That is why this amendment is being tabled in respect of smaller companies.

The argument in favour of the tax is, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned earlier, that an extra £26 billion of spending will be introduced into the economy and that this will increase the demand, so reducing unemployment. Defending this principle, the noble Lord pointed out that the vital issue is what the money is used for. With respect to him, money passing through the Government’s hands is not spent as wisely, as effectively and with the same discipline as in the private sector. In the private sector, if you get something badly wrong, you go bust; in the public sector, there is no such immediate discipline.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

You get a knighthood.

[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.

17:00

I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said about simplification; I completely agree with him. In 2006, I did a tax commission report, while we were in opposition, for George Osborne and the then leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. In fact, Gordon Brown did quite a good job in introducing some of our recommendations, but that is another story. The point is that the report recommended setting up the Office of Tax Simplification. By the time the Treasury had finished with it, it was completely emasculated and unable to do its job.

As the Minister must know, the Treasury loves thinking up new ways of increasing revenue and plucking the goose. However, with this, we are getting pretty close now to the position where the goose is showing severe signs of illness and fatigue. Of course, the noble Lord is right about simplification, but it is not right to argue that my noble friend’s amendments are complicating the tax system. On the same basis, the Government’s own proposal to increase the employment allowance, it could be argued, will increase the complexity of the tax system. If you want simplification, lower the rate and do not have an employment allowance; I would agree entirely with that.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, went on to suggest that it was a mistake to reduce the burden on small businesses, because of what was said by the OBR, which my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising was less than flattering about. I say in its defence that anyone who thinks that they can make predictions about what will happen to the economy, or about the effects of taxes in the current period of great global volatility, is on to a loser; it is extremely hard. Any Government who decide to outsource their strategic planning to other bodies, such as the OBR, will come a cropper. One of the extraordinary things about the Government’s whole approach has been to outsource power. I always think of the Labour Party as being against contracting out, but it has contracted out so much of the policy-making in the Treasury and is relying on the OBR. Who is the OBR? I am sure that it has very able people, but, as my noble friend pointed out, its track record is not exactly brilliant.

I will return to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and his basic argument. He stated that the OBR has said that the overall impact of these Budget proposals will be to increase employment. That is quite a stretch, if you believe it. I find it difficult to understand, first, how it could say that and, secondly, how it could believe it. How can the Government believe that, given all the signs as to what is going on in the economy?

The proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is that the Government taking money out of the pockets of the people, and then spending it as they see fit, will produce more jobs and wealth than leaving it in the pockets of entrepreneurs and small businesses, which will use that money and drive it in a competitive environment. His proposition is that civil servants telling Ministers to invest in particular projects will produce a better result than people spending their own money. I find that very difficult to believe, but that was the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, put to us.

But he is right that we should look at this in a broader context. He argued that we should not look at this in a narrow context, and he is absolutely right about that. We should look at it in the broader context of this national insurance imposition on small businesses, on top of everything else—on top of the family businesses and the changes that have been made to inheritance tax, which will create huge problems for businesses. I should perhaps declare an interest: I am a director of a fifth-generation family business, where all the shares are held by family members after five generations. Bringing in inheritance tax diverts capital away from investing in growing the business, and it is yet another burden on top of the national insurance increases, which in the case of Denholm’s amount to about £2 million.

There is another impact. Thinking back to meeting that payroll at the end of the month, I say that it is not just the national insurance but also that the payroll has gone up because of the national minimum wage. Where will that money come from in a market that is dead and where growth has ground to a halt? We hear about the £20 billion black hole and all the mistakes the previous Government made, but we are where we are now. I find it difficult to understand how small businesses can cope with that, on top of more coming down the line—

[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—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is 10 minutes.

[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”.

17:15

What is the effect on the economy now? Well, less than three months after the Budget, a report from the respected insolvency practitioners Begbies says that it has seen the number of companies in critical financial distress climb by 50% to 48,000 businesses. Consumer-facing sectors in particular have highlighted the concerning picture in the UK economy. Sectors that are served by small businesses, such as hotel accommodation, show an increase in financial distress of 83%, while the leisure and cultural sector shows an increase of 76%. General retailers—they include small shops, such as sweet shops and so on—show an increase of 47%; and it is 37% for food and drug retailers. These are all very worrying states of financial health.

[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.

17:18

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:29

[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.

17:45

[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.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

7: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end 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 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.

18:00

It is not as if farming is, generally speaking, a profitable business. I farm because the tenant who farmed my land could no longer afford to pay the rent, as farming was no longer profitable enough—it was not viable. My noble friend Lord Blackwell referred earlier to margins; they are pretty thin in farming. Of course, in my case, it may have been that the land was not high-quality enough, but that is a reflection on the state of farming today. In some parts of the country where the land is particularly fertile, farmers find it easier to make a reasonable income, despite the difficulties, but that is only in certain parts of the country.

The costs for farmers have gone up steadily in recent years, year on year, for fuel and fertilisers and so on. Feed goes up regularly, but the price of the end product tends to go down. Anyone who has watched Jeremy Clarkson’s programme on farming will have seen a graphic illustration of the difficulties that farmers face. Farming is, as much as anything, a way of life. To add this burden is unfair. I urge the Minister to carry out an impact assessment to assess properly whether agricultural employees should be exempted from this increase.

[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.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Amendment 8 not moved.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Altrincham]

9: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end 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 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.

18:15

These amendments address a problem of youth unemployment that has been growing for a while. There have been multiple policy interventions in apprenticeships to help young people into work but, astonishingly, participation in apprenticeship schemes, some provided with significant taxpayer support, has been falling. The number of young people starting in an apprenticeship in 2016 was around 500,000, but, after multiple policy initiatives, that number has fallen below 350,000 a couple of years ago. There seem to be lots of reasons for this, including a changing culture of employment, some complexity in the schemes and a tendency to use training for older people, but one way or another that means that young people are not getting help into the workforce.

It is, therefore, to the credit of the Government that they have brought forward a national skills strategy and plans for Skills England as well as the Get Britain Working White Paper. Those initiatives all address the issue of getting young people into work, but this Bill —alas—presents a more challenging and dissonant approach to employment that could easily undermine the Government’s own national skills strategy. There is essentially a dissonance in the Government’s own policy for young people, which on the one hand focuses on helping young people into work and on the other hand takes a very strong action that will make that hard to achieve.

These amendments would help to bring the Bill in line with government action in favour of young people. They would help the Government to stabilise the labour market, given other economic pressures, and of course help young people to develop a prosperous future. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments carefully.

[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.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendments 10 and 11 not moved.

Amendment 11A

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

11A: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end 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 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.

18:30

As the joint NCVO and ACEVO statement says:

“The knock-on impact it will have on individuals, communities and local economies who rely on us will be devastating”.

Charity Finance Group, which represents over 1,450 charities, has also voiced its concerns. In a survey of charities, 87% are worried about their ability to absorb the additional costs and 67% indicated that they are likely or very likely to cancel expansion plans, new staff and services. It could also force organisations to relinquish public service delivery contracts, further straining public services, which cannot be good for the Government.

The burden of these increases, with little time to prepare, means that there is a need for many organisations to cut or reduce their services, which will impact individuals, communities and local economies. The NCVO has passed on to me some anonymised concerns raised by their charities, including large and small ones from around the country: a domestic abuse charity operating in the north of England reported that it will have to consider laying off staff to accommodate the increases; and a large drug and alcohol charity that supports and cares for over 200,000 adults and young people each year, in communities across England and Scotland, through teams of medics, psychiatrist nurses and volunteers, will expect to pay an additional £5.2 million. Their services help to reduce demand on hospitals and primary care and reduce pressure on the criminal justice and prison systems.

A charity leader from a local health and social support charity said:

“There is no choice but to use reserves and consider cuts to essential services/supports, when requests for help are increasing”.

Finally, a local Age UK charity reported:

“We will have to start closing services ... we have absolutely nothing left to trim”.

We know that Marie Curie and Mencap have said that they will have to find huge amounts of money in the following year. Sarah Elliott, CEO of NCVO, has been very vocal in saying that charities across the country are in a dire situation, juggling a triple threat of rising demand, escalating costs and falling funding.

An increase in national insurance will place another strain on charities, so it feels extremely counterproductive for the Government to implement the increases. Imagine the burden falling on the Government should the services provided by these charities cease. Why exempt the public sector but not exempt charities and the vital partners that willingly and at no or little cost to the Government provide services of such value?

The flood of initial calculations and evidence from the sector and powerful appeals from noble Lords is stark: the Bill will have a destructive and long-term structural impact on the sector. I know that the Minister does not want to jeopardise the charity and voluntary sector, so I make a plea and urge him to relook at the devasting impact that these increases will have on our valuable, passionate and hard-working charity sector. If the Government fail to provide an exemption, or at least consider concessions to help continue to deliver the vital services that are so desperately needed, they will leave many vulnerable people in dreadful circumstances.

My noble friend Lady Noakes on the first day of Committee commented that this is a

“blunt instrument to raise taxes, so we are faced with a problem”.

The problem is that this blunt instrument is

“bludgeoning whole sectors of our community”.—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. GC 351.]

I could not agree more.

The increase in national insurance gives us no option but to consider an exemption to give relief to the sector to prevent the huge damage to employment coming down the line. I am not trying to complicate things by requesting this, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, suggested earlier; I am just saying that we are trying to save an awful lot of jobs and charities from going under.

I ask the Minister to let me know if the impact statement has ever been completed. When is it likely to be published? I have little doubt that this assessment will assist His Majesty’s Government to reconsider the exemption or, at the very least, help support the sector. I cannot stress enough the urgency for the Government to reconsider or delay these increases, as we are already hearing that services in this sector are going to be cut and jobs lost. It is already a reality.

We have heard over the past two days the damaging effects of the increases on many sectors. I hope that we will see some more movement from His Majesty’s Government and their position in relation to charities and the voluntary sector, and that the impact statement will be published. If not, I might have to bring this issue back on Report.

[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.

18:45

Almost 20 years ago in the other place, I led a very lonely campaign—in fact, I was the only Member of Parliament who was interested in it—for the fortification of basic foodstuffs with folic acid, to prevent the almost entirely preventable tragedy of hydrocephalus and spina bifida. I did that with the support of my local charity, then called the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, or ASBAH, which subsequently became the charity called Shine. I got an enormous amount of support from that charity—and, lo and behold, through many public health Ministers, many different Governments and many different spending rounds, 17 years later or thereabouts we actually achieved our aim to have those foodstuffs fortified to prevent those tragedies.

My point is that it was not me in Parliament or even the relatively well paid supporters or management of the charity that were the real backbone of the campaign —it was actually the volunteers and the relatively low-paid workers who, for instance, staffed the helpline to help parents who had to deal with the everyday tragedy of having children who had spina bifida, with caring responsibilities for children who were doubly incontinent and had mobility problems.

I should say at the outset that I am inordinately proud to play a very small part as chairman of fundraising for the WheelPower charity, for wheelchair sport. Over the years, it has been a great benefit to me personally to have been able to work with charities. For instance, I worked with Sue Ryder in raising capital funding for the new hospice in Peterborough at Thorpe Hall. We raised more than £100,000 over five years. In Peterborough, we were lucky to have some superb charities, the Leprosy Mission and Kidney Research UK being two.

I implore the Minister to look at these amendments. They are fair amendments—they are not political grandstanding amendments but practical amendments. As my noble friend Lord Leigh said, exceptions have been made for public sector entities, and I do not think that it is beyond the wit of Ministers and the brains in the Treasury to extend that, even if it means just having an exemption for a period, whether that is a year or 18 months, as my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have said.

This has come so quickly for many charities, which do not necessarily have the management infrastructure to be able to ameliorate these fiscal changes very quickly. Therefore, many of them will have to look to bigger charities to help them or get in professional help to cope with the significant changes around letting people go or making people redundant and not employing new people. That will be very difficult, and it will detract from the core functions of those charities. That is my concern: it is that the excellent work being done by so many hundreds and thousands of charities across the country will almost turn into a cul-de-sac, with some very difficult decisions to be made around cutting budgets and core services to some of the most vulnerable people in the country, such as children who are carers for sick parents, who may be terminally ill, and for people with cancer. Those are the particularly difficult cases that those charities are helping with.

The charities would like to have an opportunity to work with other agencies to ameliorate these issues and develop a properly co-ordinated plan. At the moment, because this is coming very quickly, they have not been able to work on a plan with, say, their local authority, their local clinical commissioning body or the bigger local charities such as the citizens advice bureau and other NHS entities. They would be able to do that if the Government were minded to accept a delay.

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

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Occasionally? It is more than occasionally.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

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

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

[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.

19:00

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, which seeks to prevent commencement of this Bill until an impact assessment is published for charities. The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. Indeed, as I have said previously and as we have debated on other groups today, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in a tax information and impact note, including impacts on: the Exchequer; the economy; individuals, households and families; equalities; businesses, including civil society organisations; and details on monitoring and evaluation. The Government do not intend to publish any additional impact assessments. Delaying introduction of the Bill in this way would also have cost implications that would undermine the purpose of the Bill.

Given the points that I have set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[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.

Amendment 11A withdrawn.

Amendment 12 not moved.

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

13: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert “or on the day after an impact assessment is published assessing the impact of the provisions in this section on jobs, wages, inflation and growth, whichever is later”
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.

19:15

I echo the sentiments of everyone who has spoken here, and those of my noble friend Lady Noakes, who has proposed Amendment 33, and of my noble friend Lord Londesborough, because of the need to know the effect not just on employers in some detail but on jobs. Unlike the impact assessment that the Government have given, which includes the number of employers affected, we need to know the category of business size, the number of employees, the cost to the employer and the estimated effect on levels of employment and wages. There is a clear need for this.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for his most courteous and detailed replies but, in the end, I wish the Government would take a leaf out of his book and do what he says. We need detailed replies, and the document of 14 November or the HMRC’s costing issued on 18 December are very thin gruel. We can look at what they say, and see that they draw on the Autumn Budget, the OBR’s analysis and the other information given by HMRC, about numbers affected and estimated costs—but they have not been borne out by the subsequent evidence.

The Government and other official predictions were as follows: 940,000 employers will see an increase, 250,000 a decrease and another 820,000 no change. Employers will have to pay for updating software and become familiar with change. The changes will raise £23.7 billion in 2025-26, rising to an estimated £25.071 billion in 2029. Output, the Government suggest, will decrease by 0.1%. The following is a rather dire prediction, even on the Government’s terms: the increased business costs will lead to lower wages; 0.2% will be added to CPI inflation in the near term, and employers will pass on part of the cost. The impact on individuals will depend on employers’ behavioural response. The figures refer to the OBR’s October 2024 economic and fiscal outlook on households and families. This simply tells us that, depending on employers’ behavioural response, individuals may be impacted indirectly by changes to secondary class 1 NIC rates, secondary thresholds, and so on. We do not have any specific information. Indeed, since then, official figures have suggested that the sums raised by this tax raid will not bring in anything like the £23.8 billion estimated for 2025-26 or the £25.7 billion in 2029. On account of behavioural changes, the indirect consequences of wages, and the impact on labour supply and profits, the gain will be a mere £16 billion in 2029.

These figures have been published, but they probably still underestimate the yield because of behavioural changes and job losses. In all this, we therefore need a more detailed picture and breakdown before the Act comes into operation. We also need a review at that point, because we are talking about people’s jobs, growth in this country, and the ability, as the Minister continues to say, to pay for the kind of public services that people want and of a standard that they need. Therefore, the information needs to be more specific and nuanced than what has been offered so far.

Different categories of businesses will be affected differently. In the case of the sole trader, there is no distinction between the business and the employer, including the sole proprietor, who employs others—and many do. There are 198,000 sole proprietors who are also employers, out of around 3.1 million—56% of the total. How many of them will see their payroll tax go up? To what extent will the employment allowance off-set some of the cost and by how much? Given the significant and disproportionate costs of compliance on small businesses, how will they cope and will they be given help towards compliance and accessing the employment allowance? Accountancy, legal and advice fees will also take a hit, the charges that small businesses will pay for existing services from professional people will go up and therefore the whole payroll overhead will go up. This does not take into account the other costs implied in the Budget.

We do not have this estimate nationally, other than the 940,000 that, we hear, will lose out. However, we have heard about the impact on different groups: hospitality, retail and hairdressing. In all three, part-time and entry-level workers form a significant proportion of the workforce. In hospitality alone, UKHospitality found that one in five of the sector’s workforce—around 774,000 people—will move into the new employer NIC threshold for the first time under the Chancellor’s proposals, resulting in an extra cost of £l billion. The sector, which covers hotels, restaurants, cafes, pubs and nightclubs, believes that the changes will have a disproportionate effect on hospitality, given the high proportion of part-time and flexible working. Staff not eligible for employer NICs will drop from 1.2 million to just 450,000, resulting in increased costs. I am afraid that employers have already begun preparations to cut jobs and investment, and to raise prices. Three-quarters of a million people will be brought into this employer tax for the first time.

Retailers have warned of closures. They estimate an impact of £7 billion in extra costs, due to the whole Budget, as they grapple with higher national insurance contributions and other measures. Many are household names and very big employers, such as Amazon UK, Tesco, Next and Asda. The British Retail Consortium warns that job losses, price rises and shop closures will be inevitable. It points out:

“The impact of the Budget NIC threshold change is particularly acute given retail employs large numbers of people in entry-level and part-time roles”.

These are the lowest entry-level people, who need the training of their first-time job to make their way in the sector. I meet them every night in the supermarket, and they are making their way thanks to starting at the bottom, moving up to management and moving on.

The British Hair Consortium, another consortium with different working practices, found that 20% of hair salons were considering closure within 12 months, while most were thinking about switching to a self-employed model to deal with the cost increases. In the nursery sector, it is the same; nurseries are saying that they will cut places and jobs, and that some will close.

To conclude, part-time workers and entry-level juniors will lose their jobs because of the lower threshold, and new jobs that might have been created will not be. Entrepreneurs have talked about stopping and stalling new outlets that they were proposing; there are many stories about and accounts of this. All this suggests that the reduction in productivity output will be less than the 0.1% estimated by the Government. In short, if the Bill as it stands becomes law, working people, their families, jobseekers and entrepreneurs—indeed, the whole economy—will suffer. With a more revealing and detailed economic analysis before and after it takes effect, it is my hope that the Government will think again about this disastrous move on tax rates, which will put so many jobs at risk.

[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.

19:30

It would be a very strange set of government measures that spent £142 billion over five years without it having some impact on employment, but that is not a correct way of looking at the impact of this measure on employment, which, as many noble Lords have said, will be negative in the private sector. So, in effect, what we are seeing in this Budget is a reduction of jobs in the private sector in order to fund a significant increase in jobs in the public sector.

That is bad for two reasons. First, productivity in the public sector is very bad at improving over time. In fact, most estimates suggest that, over the past 20 years, productivity in the public sector has declined, however you measure it, whereas productivity in the private sector—particularly in manufacturing and industrial services—continues to rise. We know that, without growing productivity in the economy, we cannot have growth.

The other reason why it is bad—even though, of course, we need good public services—is that a growing, healthy and prosperous economy has to create wealth before it spends it. If you spend the money before you have created the wealth and erode the wealth-creating private sector in order to spend money, you create a less successful and less prosperous economy.

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

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

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

[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.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendment 14

Moved by

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest]

14: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert “or on the day after an impact assessment is published assessing the impact of the provisions in this section on persons who provide transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities, whichever is later”
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.

19:45

[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)]

He said, “I beg to move”.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

He cannot move it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

[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.

20:00

[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.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Secondary threshold for secondary Class 1 contributions

Amendments 16 and 17 not moved.

Committee adjourned at 8.04 pm.