Tuesday 4th February 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeNational Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 56-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (31 Jan 2025)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung, and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 2: Secondary threshold for secondary Class 1 contributions
Amendment 18
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This forms part of a package of amendments in the name of Baroness Noakes to allow for a phased introduction of the reductions to the secondary threshold.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 18 and to speak to Amendments 21, 24 and 25 in this group. These amendments are designed to make the national insurance increases in the Bill more manageable by businesses, as they are going to be picking up the lion’s share of the costs of national insurance in the first instance. The amendments do not change the overall approach of raising the rate and lowering the secondary earnings threshold; instead, they seek to phase in the secondary threshold reduction over two years, rather than taking the “big bang” approach taken in the Bill. The reduction in the secondary threshold is the larger of the two main changes in the Bill, raising roughly one and a half times the amount raised by raising the national insurance rate of contributions.
I should declare my financial interests in a wide range of listed companies, many of which operate in the UK and are therefore affected by the Bill. These include shareholdings in Next plc—which gives me a neat segue into the fact that I was prompted to table these amendments after listening to a “Today” programme interview with my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, in his capacity as chief executive of Next, who argued for delayed implementation. I was delighted when my noble friend then added his name to my amendment, along with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I very much look forward to his contribution to the debate.
I was particularly struck when listening to the “Today” interview by my noble friend’s analysis of the financial impact of the changes on part-time jobs and those that pay at or around the minimum wage. I think he said that it will add roughly 2% to the cost of employing higher-paid workers, but for part-time and lower-paid workers the figure is 6.5%. This, of course, is before you factor in the minimum wage hike, which will be coming in at the same time and will more than double the impact on certain kinds of employees, particularly younger ones.
I spoke about the regressive effect of the Bill at Second Reading and I was frankly astonished that the Minister’s Back-Benchers were not jumping up and down about the impact of the national insurance changes on the employment prospects of key groups such as female part-timers and young people. His Back-Benchers seem to have bought the disingenuous line, which has been run by the Chancellor and, indeed, the Minister, that these extra national insurance costs will be borne by businesses. The plain truth is that employers will not simply absorb the cost increases, as the Office for Budget Responsibility made abundantly clear: employees will pay, in the form of reduced hours, reduced pay increases or job losses. We will all pay in higher prices and, if that keeps interest rates higher for longer, home owners will pay too.
Part of the problem from the business perspective is the sheer scale of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, hitting them in just a few months’ time, at exactly the same time as the minimum wage hike. I expect that the Minister will say that the minimum wage increase is not in this Bill, but the plain fact is that businesses are facing a double whammy. Very few businesses can shrug off an increase of well over 10% in their payroll costs. The likelihood is that businesses will take rapid action to try to curtail the financial impact, but that action may well be suboptimal when looked at over a longer timeframe.
Recruitment freezes are the quickest way to put a lid on costs and they are already a feature of today’s uncertain business environment. The recruitment sector is therefore struggling and will doubtless have to reduce its own headcount in due course. If hours are reduced for part-time staff, that will have a particularly hard impact on women and their families, who are often dependent on the additional income that such jobs bring. Pay increases, other than for those on the minimum wage, will probably be held down, and most families are already struggling with inflation and will be hard hit if wages go down in real terms. We can also expect employers to reduce headcount. This is already happening, as a glance at the business pages of the media will confirm.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is not here today, may well run his argument that this is entirely healthy, because it will encourage businesses to invest to reduce their reliance on labour and thereby increase productivity and release workers to be redeployed elsewhere in the economy. As I have said before, that is a nice theory, but it fails at a practical level. Businesses need confidence in the country’s economic prospects before they invest, and most business confidence surveys are well into negative territory. Many investment decisions are already on hold or being cancelled. In addition, we have high employment at present, thanks to the previous Government, but job vacancies are relatively low and falling. A more realistic outcome, at least in the short term, is that there will be fewer people in employment. The OBR calculated the impact of the national insurance changes as a loss of 50,000 jobs, but it could easily be higher than that.
My amendment is about ameliorating the short-term impact of the Government’s national insurance changes on businesses, so that they have more time to plan how they will absorb the increases alongside the additional minimum wage costs. If businesses have more time to work out the best way to cope, the impact on jobs and pay could well be softened. My amendment merely delays the full impact of the national insurance changes for an extra year, by phasing in the reduction in the secondary threshold over two years rather than make businesses face the whole impact at once next April. I am quite sure that the business community would prefer an even longer phasing in and would prefer it to apply to the increased rate of contributions as well as to the reduction in the threshold. My amendments are an attempt at a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly my role as chief executive of Next plc, a company that employs over 40,000 people, of whom 22,000 are part-time. It is a job that I have had for 22 years, which I think makes me the longest-serving chief executive in the FTSE 100. I hope that I am able to bring that experience to inform the debate, which is why I rise to speak to all the amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, to which I have added my name.
I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. To that end, I recognise the Government’s need to balance their books, the importance of their doing that, and that the parlous state of public finances cannot be wholly laid at the door of the current Administration. Nor can I see, in principle, why the employer national insurance threshold should disproportionately benefit lower-paid jobs, as it does at the moment. In principle, I can see no reason for that; it is the speed at which the change is happening that concerns me.
The problems caused by that speed are particularly acute because the axe falls hardest and disproportionately on entry-level part-time work, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out. The way in which the change in the threshold works is something of a poll tax on jobs. Poll taxes do not have a great history of success, but the cost of around £600 is the same whether you earn £9,000 or £900,000. So, the combined effect of this increase on a job paying £60,000 would be 2%; on a part-time job paying £12,000, it would be 6.5%.
That change needs to be taken in the context of the rise in the national living wage. My noble friend Lady Noakes is absolutely right that, together, they mean that the figure for entry-level part-time working—jobs in hospitality, retail and care homes—will go up by 13% in April this year. It is impossible to see how this can result in anything other than a reduction in opportunities to join the workforce; indeed, it will result in some people having to leave the workforce. I hope that, going forward, these types of changes and the work of the Low Pay Commission are considered in conjunction with each other. It seems to me that these two changes have come in at the same time without co-ordination.
Unfortunately, this change comes at a time when the employment market is at something of a tipping point. Again, it is no one in particular’s fault—it is the employment cycle—but every economic indicator that I can see, through both the ONS and my own work, suggests that the labour market is hardening. In every single discipline in the business that I work for, whether it is computer programming or product development for stores, the applicant to vacancy ratio is rising.
Let me give a flavour of that. Last year, when we took on temporary staff in the run-up to Christmas, the ratio of applicants to vacancies was up by 50% on the previous year. In the previous year, we had nine applicants for every shop job; last year, it was more than 13. In this environment, the speed of change will dramatically affect the national insurance threshold change’s impact on both people and inflation.
Starting with the social impact, it is inevitable that businesses will have to accelerate their plans to increase productivity. There are plenty of opportunities to increase productivity, mechanisation and artificial intelligence both being at the forefront of those opportunities; but one way or another, that increase in productivity means fewer jobs. The time we have to implement those changes will directly affect the social impact of those efforts to increase productivity. The faster the change occurs, the less time businesses and individuals will have to manage down employee numbers through the natural turnover of staff, which is the normal way we would try to implement any improvement in productivity, particularly in part-time work. Natural turnover of staff is quite high; if you can manage such changes through natural turnover, it dramatically reduces the impact on human beings.
It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is not here, because I have heard him say that labour becoming more productive—that is, going out into the workforce and finding other, more productive things to do—can be a good thing. It can, but it will take people time to find those additional jobs, and time is what these amendments ask for.
Last Wednesday, my noble friend Lady Lawlor highlighted the acute pressure that the threshold change will put on retailers. She was right. On that day, Morrisons said that, in the light of the Budget, it would have to go harder and deeper in its drive to reduce costs. It joined Sainsbury’s, which has already announced 3,000 job losses.
The second reason for phasing in this change is its effect on inflation. Again, it might be helpful if I give the perspective of the company I work for. It is in the fortunate position whereby the growth we are able to enjoy, the margins we have and the productivity gains we think we will be able to achieve, collectively mean that we will need to pass on an increase in prices of only 1% this year, as a result of the Budget changes. Had we not had those margins to absorb the changes, and had we not had those productivity gains, that figure would have been just over 4%.
In other industries, in particular the food industry, margins are much narrower than those enjoyed in fashion retail. My concern is that everything I am hearing from that industry means that we will see price rises in the order of 4%. Were the threshold change to be phased in over two years, that inflationary spike would reduce price rises to closer to the Bank of England’s 2% target. That in turn would pave the way for a faster reduction in interest rates, which is in everyone’s interest—including the country’s biggest borrower, the Government. Phasing in the change would reduce the social and inflationary costs of this increase.
Lord Swire (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I want to speak briefly in support of this series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and others. It is very important to listen to what somebody such as my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is involved in the retail industry, has just said.
I know, given my experience of dealing with the Treasury as a Minister, that it takes an absolutist position on most things. The Treasury does not like to cede any point at all; it regards that as some sort of weakness. I suspect that the Minister has been told that this is what the Treasury has decided and that he is not to resile from any of the arguments or rescind any of the inherent parts of the Bill. However, this proposal would not really change anything.
We on this side of the House are not arguing against these increases. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in Davos about reinvigorating the economy and instilling confidence in it, at the same time as the Government are going to kick in the solar plexus a lot of those entering the market—people leaving university, for instance, and trying to get into the job market for the first time. They have an astonishing combination of challenges ahead of them, not least because of student loan repayments and the cost of housing.
If these changes are instigated so quickly now, where are the companies’ savings going to come from? They can come only from freezing employment and shedding jobs, from passing on the costs to the consumer and from totally stopping their R&D budgets. All these things are not, I would argue, in the long-term interests of the British economy.
By all means let these changes come, but let the market be prepared—the market being the employers, who can look at these changes and spend more time trying to accommodate them. Otherwise the Government are going to achieve what they think they are going to achieve on the one hand with an increase in income from these increases, but at the same time there must be a decrease because there will be fewer people in employment and more people needing some kind of financial support, which will have the precise inverse effect of what we are told the Government are seeking to achieve.
I hope that the Minister will realise that we are not trying to attack the principle of what the Government are trying to do. We recognise the fact that the Government need to raise revenue from somewhere, but we are asking the Government to think more holistically about the knock-on effects on those very people who they maintain they are also trying to help.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. It occurs to me—I would be interested to know whether it is true—that this must be the first series of amendments where the three signatories have all been directors of FTSE 100 companies. That must tell us something. I think it is the first time, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.
It is a great pleasure to speak after one of my role models—she does not know it, but it is true—my noble friend Lady Noakes, as well as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and, particularly, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Apsley Guise, who is widely regarded as one of the leading businessmen of his generation. I say that because he is from a younger generation than me, perhaps. He has an outstanding business career that has created thousands of jobs and tremendous value for shareholders. Thankfully, he still has time to contribute to your Lordships’ House and other communal activities, so when he speaks I think we should listen carefully. He is right to say that there is some truth that more expensive labour leads to greater productivity, mainly because productivity is measured as output per hour so, by definition, productivity improves, but it is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself. He mentioned the food sector. Certainly, in the hospitality sector I know of companies that are just closing down. This increase has led them to say that they are going to give it up, which cannot be what the Government want.
On 6 January, Next reported anaemic growth as the result of the tax measures. On the very same day, S&P Global’s Purchasing Managers’ Index came out and said that nearly 25% of British businesses reduced their workforce following the Budget specifically. The index indicated that the private sector has experienced its weakest growth in 14 months, with firms shedding jobs at the fastest pace in more than 15 years, other than during the pandemic. HMRC released its payroll data on 21 January. Employees in the UK declined by 47,000 to 30.3 million in December alone, the biggest drop since November 2020, which again was pandemic-related. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson mentioned, Sainsbury’s came out on 23 January with cuts to head office of 3,000 and an ambition to reduce senior management roles by 20%. Recently, on 27 January, the Confederation of British Industry reported that private sector firms expect a significant decline in activity over the next three months with a weighted balance of 22% negative. It said that this pessimism is widespread across sectors including services, distribution and manufacturing. The downturn was mainly due to the Budget.
With the assistance of someone who is much smarter than me on spreadsheets, I have tried to calculate the effect of all this. Although I am an economist by background, this is not a specialist area for me, so I would be extremely grateful if the Minister would ask the Treasury to comment on the numbers that I am going to give him. I think that they are right, but I would be more than happy to be challenged if they are not.
My premise is that the average UK earnings per full-time employee is £33,280. The number of full-time equivalents in the UK is bang on 30 million. If you increase the existing employers’ NI rate of 13.8% to 15% and reduce the existing NI threshold of £9,100 to £5,000, you get an increase in total NI take from £100 billion to £127.2 billion, giving you a total employers’ NI increase of £27.2 billion—or, to be precise, £27.154 billion—which is the sum that the Chancellor seeks. Fair enough. But, given all that we have heard today, what happens if employment reduces? You can put in any variable you like. I have taken what I regard to be a most reasonable suggestion of 3%. Let us say that, as a result of this, there is a 3% reduction in employment. Personally, I think it would be much more, but let us say 3%. At that point, the number of UK full-time equivalents becomes 29.1 million. The employers’ NI take goes to £123 billion, which is a reduction of £3.8 billion. But, at the same time, there is universal credit for those redundant full-time equivalents of £20,000 a head, which costs the Treasury £18 billion. If you add the loss of that universal credit to the reduction in NI take that I have just mentioned, you get a net loss of—guess what—bang on £27.05 billion. So, the 3% reduction in employment that I reckon will happen leads to absolutely no gain to the Treasury whatever.
I present those figures because I would like to be challenged on them and proven wrong, but I do not think that I am. Along with the signatories to the amendment, I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to reflect carefully, in the spirit of co-operation, as to whether it is wise to bring this measure in so harshly, so quickly.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that this is my first intervention on the Bill. I am not a FTSE 100 director, nor am I the chief executive of a great company like Next. I am the chief executive of a small charity in Scotland and the reason why I have not been able to participate on this Bill is that we are going through a consultation process to reduce our employee numbers at this very moment as a direct result of the cliff edge and shock to us of the increases in national insurance.
I rise merely to say that everything that my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Wolfson and Lord Leigh have just said is my daily life at the moment. While businesses can potentially put up their prices, charities cannot. What also concerns me is that because this cliff edge, which is what these amendments are trying to smooth out, is happening at the same time as the rise in national minimum wage, we are facing a double whammy in trying to make our books balance.
What finally concerns me is that this will lead not only to a reduction in the number of those in employment but to a reduction of skills in these organisations. These things cannot easily be built up again, should the situation change. Give us time to implement and do the things that we need to do. I urge the Minister to listen to my colleagues and do all that he can to soften this terrible blow.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are not in the same place as those on the Conservative Benches in taking the position outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, to seek a delay before these measures are introduced. We are opposed to their introduction. We supported a regret Motion at Second Reading and those on the Committee who were present in the first two days will know that we moved a series of amendments essentially to halt the increase in employers’ NICs, and the related changes, in its tracks. In the case of part-timers, we went beyond that and sought to have employers’ NICs halved from their current level because of the importance of dealing with disadvantaged people, the hospitality industry and other reasons. In the first two days of Committee, I and my colleagues talked extensively and made our substantive and detailed arguments. I know that the Committee will not want to hear me repeat all those, so I merely say that we stand our ground.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 18, 21 and 25 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I am particularly pleased to see my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, who brings his unique knowledge of the difficulties that businesses are facing, especially in the retail sector. He runs one of Britain’s most admired companies—and has done so for 22 years, he tells us. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Leigh, and others, said about him and his business.
As always, my noble friend Lady Noakes stated the arguments very clearly and persuasively. My noble friend Lord Wolfson used a new phrase, for this Committee: he talked about a poll tax, rather than the “jobs tax” term that we have used before—that is always a warning. He said that the changes in national insurance could affect as many as 20 million jobs, which explains to some extent the huge reaction there has been to this measure right across business and, indeed, from many in work.
As he said, for relatively little cost, we could reduce the social and economic impacts of the changes. His spirit was very constructive. He acknowledged the productivity improvement that is needed, some of which is already in the pipeline, as he said, but also the difficulty of what I would call the shock tactic of the double whammy of the April changes. My noble friends Lord Swire and Lord Leigh gave us first-hand evidence of the loss of jobs which is taking place already, and which we have talked about before. My noble friend Lady Fraser evidenced the impact of that double whammy and brought out the point about the loss of skills: if people lose their jobs, we lose the skills in the industry. We had further estimates from my noble friend Lord Leigh, to add to those we had last week from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which merit attention.
The amendment seeks to allow for a more gradual transition in the reduction of the secondary threshold. That would allow businesses time to adjust to the increase of a substantial new tax burden. It aims to be a small but important step in alleviating some of the burden on employers. The Government have to accept that they have placed considerable strain on business with their fiscal policies, and a phased introduction would provide a more manageable path forward.
Businesses are the backbone of the economy: they provide jobs, drive innovation and contribute to the prosperity of our communities right across the country. However, given the current pressures they are under, it is critical that we do not introduce changes that exacerbate their struggles. The sudden and sharp reduction in the secondary threshold will represent a huge burden, particularly for smaller employers, as we discussed last time, and for those grappling with rising costs and reduced cash flow. A gradual approach would ensure that the reduction was not a sudden shock to businesses and allow them to adjust their payroll and budgeting systems. It would be more predictable and manageable, and employers could plan and absorb the changes over time.
The IFS has found that the lowest salaries will be affected the most, with the lowest earners facing a larger than 4.5% increase in contribution, compared with less than 1.5% for the highest earners. It is partly because of the perverse effects and the adjustment issues that we are looking at today that the IFS has suggested that the Budget measure will—quite quickly—raise only £16 billion a year. My noble friend Lord Leigh has also modelled the impact of a 3% jobs cut, which he estimates would wipe out the revenue from the proposed changes.
We need to think again. My noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Wolfson talked about the 10% to 13% increases coming in April, if you take NICs and the national minimum wage together; some delay or a reduction in the threshold would avoid the disaster, particularly on the high street, that I am so worried about.
I was talking to an excellent member of staff in the closing shop in Salisbury which I mentioned last week. She still does not have a job to go to. That has not been my experience of retail closures in the past; usually, the best employees are quickly snapped up by the competition. We have a bit of a problem here, and I would like to work with the Government to see whether anything can be done to alleviate the difficulties.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, which would phase in the introduction of the secondary threshold cut to £6,760 in the next tax year and £5,000 from 2026-27.
I absolutely appreciate the concerns raised by noble Lords during this debate, and by businesses, about the impacts of the Bill. It was a privilege to hear the insights and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and I greatly appreciate the constructive spirit of his contribution. However, as I have set out previously in this Committee, the Bill is necessary to repair the public finances, to protect working people and to invest in Britain’s future, including by providing more than £20 billion extra for the NHS over this year and next. This funding will reduce waiting times by supporting the NHS to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week and will make progress towards the commitment that patients should expect to wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. Reducing the threshold by less than that set out in the Bill would reduce the revenue generated by it and would therefore introduce new pressures, which would have to be met by more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.
Given these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can he say how much this amendment and the resulting delay would cost the Government? That would help those of us on this side of the Committee to understand why this is not possible.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government tend to cost the Government’s policies. It is not usual practice for the Government to cost Opposition policies.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, will he commit to having the Treasury look at the numbers I mooted? I will happily send him the spreadsheet if it helps to verify whether they are accurate.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord set out some figures that are based on his assumptions, not the Government’s assumptions. I have no reason to dispute his maths or the computing power of Microsoft Excel, but I do not think I can commit Treasury resources to checking the figures in his own spreadsheet.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all my noble friends for taking part in this debate and supporting these amendments. They were put forward as a constructive way to deal with what could be some very damaging impacts caused by the Government’s legislation.
I was confused by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, saying that she is against the Bill, so she does not want to engage in ways of making things better. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we believe that what we are here to do is try to make policies better, even though we disagree with virtually all the Bills the Government are putting forward at the moment. Our job is to engage constructively and, certainly, to try to avoid damaging aspects.
My noble friend Lord Wolfson spoke about being able to pass on price increases of 1%; he has an amazing luxury, because not all retailers can do that. At the weekend, I got talking to a local businessman who owns a number of shops. Most of his workforce are part-time staff. He employs quite a lot of people in and around our villages, and in the neighbouring villages, where he has other shops. He said that he does not know what to do. He cannot increase prices because the goods he sells do not lend themselves to significant price increases. The only thing he can do is to reduce hours or numbers. These measures means that our local economies—things that are really important to people—will be damaged by less income for local families. They are having really significant impacts, whether at the large end of business or the very smallest end.
I regret the Minister just saying again and again that he has to repair the finances and put more money into public services because he wants to protect working people. The one thing he is not doing with these changes is protecting working people. I sincerely hope that, between Committee and Report, the Government will think about whether they can find ways of making this Bill less damaging. We are not arguing that the Bill should not exist—we do not believe that that is our role, and we did not vote against it at Second Reading and certainly would not have done so—but there are many ways of softening its edges. I hope the Government will consider that between now and Report.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for early years provision.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will speak also to my Amendment 40; both concern early years provision. I am afraid that this measure is another example of not protecting working people. The Budget will have a disastrous impact on the early years sector, and we need to consider this fully.
My Amendment 28 asks the Government to produce an appropriate impact assessment on the effect of this jobs tax on the early years sector. There have been calls from across the sector for the Government to acknowledge the impact this measure will have. The Early Years Alliance has estimated that this harsh tax will cost each nursery an additional £18,600 per year. Yet, despite these calls, the Government have not acknowledged the especially harsh impact this tax will have on the early years sector.
The chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association has told us that, on average, 75% of a nursery’s expenditure is spent on staffing costs, and that, as a result of this tax raid, nurseries will have to find an additional 11% on top of the usual amount they spend on staff. Her view was that, following this Budget, the only realistic options facing nurseries are to pass the extra burden on to parents and/or to reduce the number of places they offer, in order to prevent them going out of business. Although I welcome the additional funding for early years introduced in the Budget, this sector is already under financial pressure, and this additional burden on a sector that provides such an integral service seems incredibly short-sighted.
In December, the Government published their funding rates for 2025-26, but they failed to include an uplift for this damaging tax, which they themselves are introducing. My Amendment 40 seeks to reduce the impact on early years by increasing the employment allowance in this labour-intensive sector. This is often made up of part-time workers whose employers are hit worst by the reduction in the threshold for NICs, as we just heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson. I would like to understand the cost to the Exchequer. The Minister helpfully gave us a figure for the overall cost of the increase in the employment allowance last time. Can he give an estimate of how much will go to early years providers, so that we can understand the impact of doubling it?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we consider these areas so important that employers’ national insurance contributions should not be changed from the current formula. Our position remains unchanged. We discussed it extensively in both substance and detail on the first two days in Committee, and I would not try the Committee’s patience by repeating all the arguments that were made from these Benches.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support these important amendments. Today, all three and four year-olds in England are entitled to free education before they start school full time at the age of five. In the year 2023-24, there were almost 23 children for every teacher—the highest ratio thus far. If we continue with this measure without amendment, we will see an even higher ratio, with the number of adults declining because of the costs, as we heard previously in Committee and again today. We have 3,100 nursery schools and 11,700 day nurseries, and they play an integral part in the induction of little people into the world of education. They are vital to the well-being of the child and, indeed, to parents being able to pay their way with confidence that their children are receiving an early years education. I urge the Minister to provide an exemption, or to ensure in one way or another that early years education and care providers, whether in a nursery school, a day nursery or another system—voluntary and independent, as well as public sector—are prevented from losing teachers due to the additional costs.
I echo what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said. I would be very happy with an increased employment allowance. We need an impact assessment, given the large number of people employed in this sector and the impact this measure will have on children’s education later in life. We are now paying the price of the Covid lockdown, with the children who passed through schooling at that age. Let us stop making things difficult for early years provision and try to improve it, not disimprove it by such a measure.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks to prevent commencement of this Bill until an impact assessment is published for the early years sector.
Delaying commencement of the Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have stated previously in Committee, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note, including impacts on the Exchequer, the economy, individuals, households and families, equalities and businesses, including civil society organisations, with details on 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 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 taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.
Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. This would introduce new pressures which would have to be met by either more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I also note that creating new thresholds or rates based on what sector a business is in would introduce distortion and additional complexity into the tax system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked for some specific figures. The figures are not broken down in the way that she asks for.
Early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible. That is why, in our manifesto, the Government committed to delivering the expansion of government-funded childcare for working parents and to opening 3,000 new or expanded nurseries through upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector.
Despite the very challenging fiscal circumstances the Government inherited, at the Budget the Chancellor announced significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver government-funded childcare places. This means that total funding will rise to more than £8 billion in 2025-26.
In light of these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response. I hope that in the light of what has been said today and on previous days, the Government will look at the impact of these NICs changes on our early years sector.
When we were in government, we took steps to support the early years sector, and we know that the national insurance increase is going to be a significant setback. My noble friend Lady Lawlor talked about the numbers of providers spread across the country, which play a huge part in the induction to the world of education and in helping young people to get the right kind of start in life. The very least the Government can do is to look at the impact note again and produce an assessment of the impact of the policy on the early years sector in particular, not just the overall economic impact. We have heard from the Minister on several occasions that they have produced a note, but it is a macroeconomic—an overall—note, while what we have here are very big changes in the economy affecting individual sectors, some of them very badly. There does not seem to be any readiness to look at the impact in those sectors and to find solutions, whether through national insurance changes or some other way. I suggested the employment allowance as another route.
The noble Lord will also recall that when in government we took steps to increase the supply of early years provision by expanding the childminding sector and encouraging the establishment of new nurseries alongside our expansion of the 30-hours free childcare policy. Without an assessment of the impact of these changes, how can the Government be sure that they will be able to deliver on the ambitious plans that the Minister set out to expand free childcare hours for hard-working families? I think there is a measure of agreement on objectives, but we need to find a way to get there.
These are important questions, and Ministers need to answer them before we get to Report. It is intolerable that we are pressing ahead with a jobs tax without a full assessment of the policy. We have had some macro figures, now broken down into three chunks, but it is very difficult for us to know what the individual effect is on different sectors. This is a serious matter. Working families across the country are very concerned. My worry is that the noise of concerns on something such as early years will increase as April comes and early years providers discover just what sort of hole they are in, but in the interests of time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for hospices.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 29 is in my name and would prevent commencement of the Act until a full impact assessment is published for hospices. The NI announcement was a big blow for hospices already struggling with their budgets. There is also understandable frustration in hospices being told that this was for the benefit of an NHS that is already chronically underfunding most children’s and adult hospice services.
Sam Royston said:
“We project that over the coming 25 years the need for palliative care is going to rise by 25%, with around 150,000 more people needing”
end-of-life services. He said:
“We have no plan, no plan at all to address the scale of that challenge”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, 29/1/25; col. 189.]
Hospices are particularly impacted as most have significant retail operations employing many people close to the minimum wage and many on part-time contracts. These are the employees where, typically, the impact of this tax is proportionally highest.
Many hospices already struggling with deficit budgets modelled the financial costs at between £150,000 and £450,000 in proportion to their turnover. For example, St Christopher’s Hospice in south London said that it will face increased costs of around £450,000 a year, which is equivalent to the cost of nine specialist nurses. Nationally, the hospice movement estimates that the cost to the sector will be £34 million for England and just under £40 million for the whole of the United Kingdom. Only this week, the Kirkwood hospice announced that it would be reducing its costs by £1.7 million a year, which will involve placing 33 roles at risk of redundancy.
We all know how important hospices are and the difference that they make. I got in touch with Rachel Street, who is the CEO of Heart of Kent Hospice. This is a hospice I know well: my mother was a founding patron, and I have seen the dedication of the frontline staff, their professionalism and their compassion. They make—and I use this phrase deliberately—a life-changing difference. I visit it every year to present colleague awards in my mother’s name, and I am always moved by their stories and by the kindness and tenderness that they show to those at the end of life’s journey.
As a charity, Heart of Kent Hospice has been hit with the double whammy that my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Fraser discussed earlier: increases to the national living wage and employers’ national insurance. Plus, as a charity employing doctors and nurses, it anticipates being impacted by any increases to the NHS Agenda for Change pay scales. It has more than 60 staff whose salaries will need to be uplifted to the national living wage, which is more than a third of its workforce. It now needs to look to reinstate differentials between roles, otherwise shop assistants and shop managers in its retail operation will be on the same salary. The ripple effects up through the organisation are huge, squeezing pay differentials throughout.
The retail teams are where hospices are seeing the cost pressure the most, drastically reducing the surplus made by their charity shops, which is an important part of their income for the delivery of palliative care services. For all hospices, the main costs of delivering vital services are wages and salaries, and, like other charities, they employ many colleagues on the national living wage, often in part-time roles, so they are all significantly impacted. For the Heart of Kent hospice alone, this change will cost it over £200,000 a year, on top of the £6.5 million it needs to raise, of which only 20% is funded by the integrated care board.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I rise in support of my noble friend, who made an excellent and passionate speech about hospices and the dire need for support they will have if the NICs changes go through. They will affect, as we have heard already, redundancies and the level of staffing. The burden that will be put on hospices will be extraordinary and the figures are unbelievable if we consider how much they will have to raise if they have to find that money in the future. As I have said previously, it is imperative that we have an impact assessment whereby we can understand these individual sectors and the absolute devastation that will happen if we do not know what will happen, going forward. So I plead with and urge the Minister to reconsider and support my noble friend on this important sector. It is important that we know a little more about what will happen if these insurance rises take place.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest in much the same way. If all goes to plan, I will speak on Thursday in respect of social care homes, particularly adult social care homes, where many of the same issues arise. I cannot imagine the response if a Conservative Government had decided to put national insurance rises on such institutions; can noble Lords begin to see the headlines that would be against us?
This House is a revising Chamber; it allows the Government the opportunity to pause, rethink and consider, and if ever there was a case to do so, this is it. Before the Government have the acute embarrassment of urging Peers to go through the Division Lobby to penalise care homes and hospices in such a way, I very much hope that they will take advantage of the gap between Committee and Report to reflect on the arguments.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest and thank her for her very moving and informed speech. It triggered a memory for me. I was approached by the Children’s Hospice South West for a fundraiser —my goodness, I think it was 15 years ago—and managed to raise a record amount by putting on an event for it. I saw for myself the astonishing job that hospices do. They provide a level of care and places that many of these people—children, in particular—could not find elsewhere, so the question for the Minister is this: if some of them are to shed staff and therefore be less able to take these very needy children and their relations, where will the Government step in? How will they take up the slack and what, ultimately, will be the cost to the Government?
I have some sympathy with the Minister. He has come here today to hold the Treasury line, of course, but we are wasting our time if, to each and every group of amendments we table, the stock reply is, “The Government need to raise the money. They don’t recognise the figures that the Opposition are presenting”, and we move on to another set of amendments. That does not suggest to me much dialogue or debate. But I congratulate the Minister on one thing: so far in our deliberations this afternoon he has not alluded once to the fictitious £22 billion black hole.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, listening to noble Lords present the case for Amendment 29, I agreed with every single word that was said. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, said that an exemption was required. Amendment 29 does not ask for that exemption; it asks for an assessment to be done, and therefore it does not mean that an exemption would come, which is why, on day one in Committee, we on these Benches tabled an amendment to say that an exemption for hospices should apply. If we bring that back on Report, I hope that the noble Baroness will support us as we hold our ground.
I want to talk briefly to the other amendment in this group: Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding the increase in the employer allowance to £20,000 for hospices. Just as a matter of fact, the average number of staff per hospice is 81 full-time equivalent employees, and the average salary is £23,626. Therefore, the average total salary bill for a hospice is £1.863 million, so a £20,000 employment allowance will be absolutely useless because hospitals will still be clobbered by the national insurance contribution increase. That is why we put them down for an exemption, and we hold our ground on that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 41. I support Amendment 29 in the name of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, who gave an extremely moving speech. She has made such a huge contribution to the charitable sector, as a supporter and a fundraiser. We must listen to her and the evidence that she has gathered in her work in the run-up to this discussion, which shows how important it is to find a way to match the compensation that NHS bodies are getting under the arrangements made for increasing national insurance and reducing the threshold.
That is the purpose of our series of amendments, some of which are probing, some of which we will pursue, because this is an important sector. Hospices are an essential part of our healthcare system, and the Bill will leave many unable to provide the services that they are currently offering. I was glad to have the support of my noble friend Lady Sater for both amendments, and that my noble friend Lord Swire was able to mention the fundraising for hospices which many have taken part in across this House. Indeed, hospices were one of my favourite charities of the year at Tesco, and one of the most moving with staff. We were talking about up to 300,000 people who were engaged in raising money for hospices. That taught us a lot about the difficulties and the wondrous jobs that they do.
My Amendment 41 seeks to increase the employment allowance for hospices, which would ease some of the financial pressures that they are facing at the hands of this Government. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, intervened, and it was helpful, to say that an exemption would cost—£1.83 million or was it billion?
Lord Scriven (LD)
I was pointing out that the average salary bill of a hospice is £1.8 million.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is the average salary bill, so the noble Lord is right that an increase in the employment allowance would not absorb all the extra costs.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Obviously, for smaller bodies, the employment allowance is, as the Minister has said on several occasions, helpful because it alleviates the cost of the changes. Therefore, looking at the employment allowance is another way of coming at the issue, which is one of the reasons why we have put it forward for discussion.
Despite the fact that many hospices provide functions that would otherwise need to be provided by the NHS or social care, the Government have failed to recognise their importance and are instead taxing the hospices that the country relies on. Although hospices do not charge for their services, they receive only one-third of their funding from the Government and rely on charitable donations for the remainder of their income. This will place unnecessary and costly additional pressures on their finances at a time when demand for hospice care is growing. The Government seem to be unaware of the great help hospices provide and the fact that they reduce pressure on the NHS by providing services in a more efficient and effective way. There is a saving there to offset any cost.
While I am aware that the Minister claims that the already published impact note is enough, I have not heard another noble Lord agree with that. Although I am sure he will respond in a similar manner, the current note is simply not sufficient and does not include any impact assessment on the very businesses it is being imposed on. That is very concerning for hospices which do so much work to support the NHS and could well be bankrupted by this Government’s decision to introduce the jobs charge. The charity for children’s hospices, Together for Short Lives, has estimated that this tax rate will cost an additional £133,966 for every children’s hospice. That is an extraordinarily high number for a sector that is not profit-orientated, and I am concerned about that impact. Although I welcome the £100 million in funding that the Government have announced for hospice improvements, that money will not help with the staffing costs that these hospices will now face.
As my noble friend Lady Monckton said, hospices are life affirming and give wide support beyond the patients in the hospices to the families in their grief. They are a vital part of the palliative care system, as I hope the Minister will agree. I think that the Government will be blamed if hospices go into a downward spiral as a result of these extra costs in April. They should look again at some way of helping them, whether it is an exemption, a delay, a change to the employment allowance or some form of compensation. It is an important matter that we should address in this Committee.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 29 and 41. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I acknowledge the powerful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest; I listened very carefully to all the points that she and other noble Lords made.
As I noted in a previous sitting of this Committee, it is important to recognise that all charities, including hospices, can benefit from the employment allowance, which this Bill more than doubles, from £5,000 to £10,500. This will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest ones. The Government also provide wider support for charities, including hospices, 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.
On the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, the situation whereby independent contractors, including primary care providers, social care providers, charities and nurseries, will not be supported with the costs arising from these changes is exactly the same as with the changes to employer national insurance rates under the previous Government’s plan for the health and social care levy.
This Government have provided a real-terms increase of 3.5% in core local government spending power for 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care. This funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector. We are also supporting the hospice sector with an increase in funding of £100 million for adult and children’s hospices to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care—
Lord Scriven (LD)
Can the Minister confirm that the £100 million is capital and cannot be used for revenue?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We are also providing an additional £26 million of revenue to support children and young people’s hospices.
As I have said previously, delaying commencement of the Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, of course, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have also said previously, an assessment of the policy has already been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note.
Further, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and to taxation. The Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.
In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions to this debate from my noble friends Lady Sater, Lord Leigh and Lord Swire. I note the contribution on Amendment 41 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. All I can say is that I urge the Minister to consider carefully the amendments we have been debating and to acknowledge the essential services provided by the hospice sector. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Altrincham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for retail.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 30 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest and to support Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Amendment 30 would delay the commencement of Clause 2 until an impact assessment had been published fully to assess the impact this tax will have on the retail sector, and Amendment 51 increases the employment allowance to £20,000 for that sector.
Retail is important because so many people work in it, not people on average or in aggregate in a Treasury forecast, but hundreds of thousands of individuals, some young, some in their first job, some working part time—as well as their families, their neighbourhoods and their customers—where they bring joy to themselves and to others every day. We know that this Bill will lead to job losses.
When the national insurance increase was first announced, there was an expectation, perhaps a hope, that the cost would be met by price rises or other changes rather than by job losses, but as the weeks have gone by, we know that the increase is being funded by job losses. That is why this impact assessment question is important because part of the impact is happening already. From the initial announcement to today, we already know that the policy is being funded by job losses, so the Bill is creating policy-driven unemployment. All of us in this Room share a little in the responsibility for this, but we should at least be very careful in our actions when we know that the cost will be unemployment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others have said, we might hope that jobs will be created elsewhere. We must surely, on all sides of this debate, hope for job creation, but that does not change the short-term impact of job losses. Equally, we might hope for productivity improvements—say, the automation of retail—which is important anyway, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned, but not, alas, if we can help it, at the cost of job losses.
To go back to what my noble friend Lord Leigh was talking about, to where the estimates at best are for those of us who are not in the Treasury, very roughly, it looks as if in retail the national insurance hike could easily lead to a 5% reduction in headcount, and if retail is of the order of 2 million or 3 million people, we could quite quickly get unemployment just from retail of 200,000. If you add a couple of hundred thousand from other areas, we are on the way to half a million job losses that could come from this policy. There was an expression earlier on about what is in scope in taxation and in the tax take. What is in scope here are individuals who will lose their jobs—unemployment is in scope. There are direct impacts on job losses.
The value of our retail sector cannot be understated. In 2024, retail sales in Great Britain were worth £500 billion, and 2.87 million people were employed in the sector: nearly 10% of all jobs in the British economy. That is therefore nearly 3 million people whose jobs will be put at risk due to this tax increase.
One of the great benefits of employment in the retail sector is that there is extraordinary element of flexibility, which allows a great number of young people to work in the sector. As has already been discussed in Committee, those who are paid the least will be affected the most. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned earlier that the cost impact on part-time and often very young workers is a 13% increase. This paints a bleak picture for our young people in the sector. Young people are already a more vulnerable group of people, and I am highly concerned that this tax increase will only paint a bleaker picture for young people trying to enter the job market.
The reduction of the threshold at which employers begin to pay employer’s national insurance to £5,000 will hit part-time employees the most. Given that half of all retail employees are part time, the fact that this jobs tax will bring 1.45 million part-time retail employees into the bracket is a devastating result for a sector that often employs young people.
The retail sector has responded with outcries at this tax that will be imposed upon it, with 81 major retailers writing to the Chancellor expressing concern over the impact the tax will have on the sector that typically operates with a 3% to 5% profit margin. In a survey done by the British Retail Consortium, 56% of chief financial officers said they would reduce the number of hours and overtime they offered their employees. This is why this is a jobs tax because businesses will be forced to cut costs in order to continue, and as such, it will hit workers the most.
I am concerned not only about the impact this tax raid will have on workers but about the impact consumers will face given the survey I mentioned above, where 67% of retailers responded that they would be forced to raise prices.
We in this Room are all aware of the impact that this tax increase will have and of the inevitable factor of creating unemployment. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this issue, and I beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend and his amendment, which is important. If the Minister will forgive me, we hear the same reply all the time. I do not think that HMRC’s figures, the Budget assessment or the OBR figures that we were given in November or December provide adequate information to sectors facing huge job losses. They need to plan ahead, and these assessments may spur the Government if it is written down in black and white that these jobs will go.
The economist Liam Halligan pointed out in his weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend that, according to S&P’s bellwether PMI index of business leaders, firms are cutting jobs at the fastest rate since the financial crisis. He writes that there was a 47,000 drop in payroll employees in December, the biggest monthly fall since lockdown. Those figures were tallied after Sainsbury’s announced 3,000 job losses. At the same time, he wrote that personal insolvencies in England and Wales were up by 14% in 2024, with a huge spike after the Budget. UK company liquidations surged. In 2024, 3,230 companies were shut down under the courts.
Last week, I mentioned the impact on the retail sector. I will not go through it, but it is estimated that as a result of the Budget entirely, which includes the NIC costs, £7 billion will go out of the retail sector. Those figures are staggering. I cannot accept the Government’s blithe assessment. I know that the Minister is sticking to the Treasury line with the statement that the impact assessments published so far are in line with what has been published in the past. We are dealing with a different sort of measure in this NIC Bill. I have been in the House of Lords only since November 2022, but it is the first time in my experience here that we have faced a measure where it is clear to all concerned that there will be job losses on a significant scale. Surely, that should spur the Government to want to provide some kind of impact breakdown for the different sectors, whether they are the charitable, voluntary or caring sectors or in the only area where we will see growth, the private sector. If the Chancellor is so convinced and she and the Government are keen and will produce growth, they should recognise that this will come from the private sector. It does not come from growing the public sector. I hope the Minister will support or think again, as my noble friend proposes, on retail.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, again, we discussed this area extensively over the first two days in Committee. I particularly recommend to the Committee the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The Government have put in place protection for microbusinesses. I think the calculation by the noble Lord was right, basically, that it is up to about seven employees. His proposals would put in significant protection for small businesses, those just up from micro and those potentially at the beginning of scale-up, which we need so much in this area. The noble Lord is now in his place, and I am delighted to make those comments in his presence.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 51 and I support Amendment 30 in the name of my noble friend Lady Monckton, presented by my noble friend Lord Altrincham, who started by drawing attention to the very substantial number of people we are talking about in retail—hundreds of thousands of people—and the problems they are facing. As my noble friend Lady Lawlor said, jobs are being cut at the fastest rate since the financial crisis. This is a grim situation.
My Amendment 51 probes whether the Government would be willing to increase the employment allowance from £10,500 to £20,000 to offer support to the smallest businesses in the retail sector at a modest cost to the Exchequer. As my noble friend Lord Altrincham noted, our retail sector is invaluable in terms of the value it creates for our economy. In 2023, retail accounted for 4.7% of the UK’s total economic output, worth more than £110 billion. Much of this value added was in small shops, from barbers and hairdressers to farm shops. For every £1 spent in 2024, 30p was spent in food shops and 11p in clothing shops. Retail accounts for at least 50% of spending in Britain, but despite that, this Government—unlike the previous Labour Government, I have to say—appear not to understand the value that this sector provides to our economy and the jobs that it provides, particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, for part-time workers on low pay.
There have been warnings from a range of sources about the devastating impact of this tax raid on workers, who will face fewer pay rises or fewer working hours, and on businesses, which will be forced to raise prices in order to maintain their business. The British Chambers of Commerce warned that more than half of firms intended to raise prices in response to these tax hikes, and we have had a detailed analysis from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, a non-food retailer. He acknowledged that price rises or job losses in the food sector and food stores might be worse because of the lower margins in that part of the industry. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, referenced the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. It is good to see him back. He also tabled an amendment in a previous sitting which I very much supported.
There is further evidence that the Government have to think again, and there is an array of ways of doing so. I hope that, before Report, the Government will sit down, think about the devastating effects of these changes and consider whether there are ways, small or large, of alleviating their impact on many sectors of the economy and of social enterprise, which we will come on to discuss again.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to prevent commencement of the Bill until an impact assessment is published for the retail sector. Delaying commencement of the Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance.
As I have said previously, an impact assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. 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 to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.
Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to increase the employment allowance for those employed in the retail sectors. The Government are taking action as part of the Bill to protect the smallest businesses by 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 will gain overall from this package. This means that employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance.
The Budget also set out further steps that the Government are taking to strengthen small businesses’ ability to invest and grow, including in the retail sector. This includes freezing the small business multiplier, permanently reducing business tax 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.
Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors would add additional complexity to the tax system and, by adding further spending pressures, would require higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
The Minister helpfully said in his opening remarks that not doing this would mean that the Government would have to increase borrowing, reduce spending or increase taxes. Yesterday—I think—I tried to be helpful by suggesting to him that there is a way of raising further revenue by amending the digital services tax to make it effective and looking at VAT on imported goods below £135. Since then, the American Government have announced that they are looking to put import taxes on goods below £135 imported from China, and the Times reported that the digital services tax was being looked at again.
In this context, will my noble friend, or rather the Minister—I beg his pardon; as he knows, I already regard him as a noble friend—reconsider what other options there might be to replace the areas of taxation which noble Peers on this side of the Committee have expressed concerns about?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and very happy to be his noble friend once again. As he knows, the Government keep all taxation under review, and I will take his submissions as representations on that matter.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
Perhaps we should not offer the Minister any more taxation ideas because we are trying to rein him in at the moment and, obviously, VAT is very much in scope and is coming next, so perhaps we should just hold back. But I thank him for his response and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for hospitality.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 31, in my name, would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for hospitality. I have spoken to several organisations in this sector and the message is clear: His Majesty’s Government have differentiated between larger and smaller businesses, making smaller businesses exempt, but larger businesses could have their profitability wiped out. As I said in the debate, the Government should have considered the mix of the labour bill on a company’s P&L and tiered the increase to relieve the pressure on high-labour, low-margin businesses, such as hospitality.
Companies are proposing to increase tariffs and pass on increases to their clients. This will bring its own problems. Bearing in mind that we have just managed to stabilise inflation, this will bring a cycle of increased prices. Companies are already getting signals from their supply chains that prices will increase due to the NI changes, so the spiral will continue. Meanwhile, growth plans are being reduced, new job opportunities are being cut and restructuring and redundancies are already under way. The people I spoke to saw no opportunity to grow their business and therefore the economy, and this is creating huge risk and pressure for businesses. They say that they are going to be so busy negotiating price increases and restructuring that they will have no time to address their strategic priorities. One business told me that it would significantly reduce the amount of capital it would have been spending in the year ahead, as it is unable now to justify the level of return. It is also reviewing labour costs to find efficiency savings to offset the cost increase. Prices for customers will increase, which will probably result in customers spending less, which will increase the pressure on businesses to reduce hours further to offset the volume decline. Entry level jobs, as we have heard already today, will simply disappear.
I had an email from someone who owns three hotels, and she gave me three examples of the effect that this will have. An over-21 year-old full-time kitchen porter having an increase of 50p per hour would mean that his salary would increase by £1,040 to £26,520 and the employer’s NI will increase by £818. A 21 year-old gardener with an increase of £1 an hour would increase his salary by £2,080 to £27,000, and his national insurance will also increase by £818. A part-time waitress over 21 with an increase of 50p an hour will have a total pay increase of £416 and the employer’s national insurance will increase by £690. So, across just three staff members, the extra salary is £3,536 and the extra national insurance is £2,477. When you consider that she employs 198 staff members across three hotels, the increase is huge. As she put it to me, “This is absolutely terrifying for us, as we simply cannot increase our prices to the same extent”.
I then spoke to James Chiavarini, who runs a long-established family restaurant in London, Il Portico. He said, “It is difficult to overstate how much hospitality helps our country by providing skills, training and employment to thousands of people, many of them neurodiverse, who want to work, want to contribute, but are not a natural fit for a 9 to 5 office job”. This is what we do at Team Domenica. We train people with a wide range of learning disabilities who want to work in this sector. With this new threshold, we know already that it will be so much harder to place them. James also said, “All the proposed increases will do is drive more businesses to close, create more unemployment and an even bigger benefit burden on the creaking state”. I will edit, for the sake of propriety and decency, his final sentence. “It’s a policy dreamt up by public servants who have never once in their lives taken on a risk to open a business, employ a struggling or vulnerable teen, or even work over a weekend”. Amendment 31 is important because jobs in the hospitality sector will disappear and restaurants, cafes and even hotels will be forced to close. I beg to move.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest’s Amendment 31. My noble friend is a tireless and brave campaigner in the charity sector, and she has spoken so movingly today about this Bill.
I declare my interests as listed in the register. I am a council member of Arts Council England and the chair and co-founder of the London Music Fund, a charity that provides music scholarships for talented children from low-income, disadvantaged backgrounds.
I have not previously spoken on this Bill but, as a passionate supporter of the arts and creative industries, I speak today for one very good reason: the national insurance increase will be devastating for the arts, which are, of course, great contributors to the hospitality and tourism sectors. Even Sir Nicholas Hytner, probably the greatest director of his generation, has said that this Government are doing more harm than good. Artistic enterprises will fold. Theatres, arts venues, museums, orchestras, music charities, conservatoires and dance and opera companies are all reeling as they work out exactly what the impact will be. The National Theatre, for example, reckons that it faces an annual bill of £1.1 million in addition to the minimum wage rise.
A report in The Stage newsletter recently calculated the overall impact on theatres. The cost averages out at about £100,000 per theatre, with the double whammy of NI and minimum wage. The Theatre Trust estimates that there are more than 1,100 theatres across the UK. Thus, a conservative estimate is a cut of £100 million to UK theatre, spread across the subsidised and commercial sectors. As Alistair Smith writes in The Stage, if the Government had instead announced a cut of £100 million to theatre funding at the Budget,
“the entire sector would be up in arms”.
Indeed, every budget is being revised and the reality is hitting home: smaller casts, fewer risks to be taken, redundancies and lower employment levels.
The Society of London Theatre estimates that 40% of theatres and performing arts venues are at risk of closure over the next five years. The larger arts venues will be clobbered by national insurance bills: £750,000 for the Southbank Centre; more than £1.5 million for the Royal Opera House; and £280,000 for the Opera North company. Two-thirds of museums are concerned about funding shortfalls. Think of the tourists who go to our great museums every year. So much for growth, levelling up and supporting the arts. Music services central to the delivery of music education to primary and secondary schools will, according to Music Mark, be hit by a bill of around £7.5 million.
This Government once trumpeted their support for the arts—how that was welcomed—but now we know that those soothing words were empty and meaningless. All arts charities slog away at raising funds from generous donors, and now some of that hard-won cash will just go into the Treasury’s coffers. This is money that was raised in the expectation of supporting creativity, access for low-income audiences and children, and so much more. This Government are no friend of the arts. It is a shameful betrayal.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, again, in the first two days we had an extensive discussion of the hospitality, leisure and tourism sectors. Once again, we stress the importance of tackling part-time work as a mechanism to keep these sectors from suffering the full impact of the Government’s changes, so I will not repeat that for about the fourth time today. We continue to be of the view that simply talking about impact assessments and employment allowances do not get us where we need to be. I am afraid that this is an issue of exemption, and the noble Lord knows that on part-time work, I feel very much that we should be reducing employers’ national insurance contributions.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to briefly support Amendments 31 and 49 in relation to the hospitality sector. As we have already learned in the two previous days of Committee, there is great resistance to having the full impact assessments we are calling for, specifically in relation to these national insurance contribution increases. Perhaps that is not surprising when you look at the impact on the hospitality sector.
I will simply share one anecdote on the experience of one independent publican, who is employing 20 part-time workers. They typically work 20 hours of shifts at £15 per hour, therefore earning £300 per week on average. This publican’s bill for national insurance contributions will increase by 73%. As we know, the real problem here is dropping the threshold so severely as to create not just a punishing but an excessively regressive tax, hitting hospitality and SMEs at the margin during their delicate stages of growth or survival.
In this case, how is the publican going to respond? These are his choices: reduce the headcount; reduce the number of hours worked by the part-time workers; reduce the number of hours that his pub can remain open; and, where possible, increase prices. All of those are very damaging to the Government’s No.1 economic mission of growth, and potentially damaging for inflation, but particularly damaging to jobs and part-time workers who rely on those jobs. Typically, we are talking about the young and the old. I again support others in saying that this is a reckless act. To push these measures through without conducting a proper assessment strikes me as economically ruinous.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 49, and I support Amendment 31 in the name of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest. The fact is that, as we have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, we need an impact assessment here as well so that we can assess where to make changes and what impact this jobs tax is having.
My Amendment 49, along with others that I have tabled, would increase the employment allowance from £10,500 to £20,000. This sector, which is so important to our day-to-day life and to our tourist industry, is full of part-time workers and the lowest paid will suffer a tsunami from the NICs changes. We need to find a way of alleviating the pain, and my amendment is one such proposal.
It is a particular pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, to the Committee and to hear her evidence of the impact on the arts. She is right that the creative industries and hospitality are integrally linked, but I was equally concerned to hear about the impact on museums, theatres and other aspects of the creative arts. She is also right that, on this evidence, the Government are no friend of the arts; that should be of concern to the Committee.
My noble friend Lady Monckton was right to talk of the spiral of price increases, the diversionary pressure on management, the impact on capital investment and the effect on jobs, especially the lowest level jobs. They are particularly hit by the double whammy, as I have said already today, of the changes in NICs and the national minimum wage, which will particularly bite younger people. For good reasons, the national minimum wage for younger people has been increased, but that is making a particular difficulty in terms of hiring them, which I fear we shall see in the results in the coming months.
I have further evidence about hospitality, which I think some local papers may be interested in, so I will run through it because it is important. There have been calls from across the sector about how damaging the tax will be. Restaurateur Tom Kerridge, despite backing Labour at the election, has expressed concern that this tax raid will have “a catastrophic effect”. He said that it would cost,
“£850 extra per member of staff per year”
and have a reaction into a negative process in terms of employment. He also said:
“This is a very difficult time for hospitality, because the next few weeks are particularly busy. They give a false sense of feeling that everything is okay … it’s going to have a catastrophic effect, moving into the new year”.
He said that just before Christmas, and things have got worse.
On top of that, UKHospitality said that the national insurance increase at the Budget will lead to business closures and job losses within a year. It said that
“the changes to the NICs threshold are not just unsustainable for our businesses, they are regressive in their impact on lower earners and will impact flexible working practices which many older workers and parents rely on. Unquestionably, they will lead to business closures and to job losses within a year”.
I was particularly pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, about his new evidence on pubs. The British Institute of Innkeeping, which has warned that the Budget will see 75% of pubs cut hours, thinks that 40% will reduce opening times and that one in three will make staff redundant. It said:
“The Budget, billed to support working people, will pull the rug out from under these already fragile small businesses and significantly reduce the employment opportunities they can provide. 75% will cut staff hours, 40% will reduce opening hours and 1-in-3 will make staff redundant”.
This will have an extraordinarily damaging impact on the sector and the economy.
More than 200 leading restaurant, pub and hotel companies including Stonegate, Greene King, Wetherspoons and Young’s wrote to the Chancellor warning that the Budget will cost the industry £3.4 billion a year. They said:
“As leaders of hospitality businesses, we are compelled to highlight our grave fears about the impact of the Budget, particularly relating to the Employer NICs threshold. Alongside the changes to the national minimum wage levels this will cost hospitality—at a conservative estimate—£3.4 billion a year”.
I would be grateful if the Minister would provide an actual number.
Finally, Simon Emeny, chief executive of Fuller’s, which owns about 400 pubs and hotels and employs almost 5,000 people, said he was “just utterly disappointed” by the Chancellor’s choices. He claimed they “disproportionately” impacted hospitality, which is a big employer of young people and part-time workers.
These are real impacts and the Government’s changes are disproportionately affecting mainly small and vibrant businesses such as these. The biggest hit is from the decrease in the threshold, which could be phased in. Alternatively, the Government could help smaller businesses by increasing the employment allowance, as I have also suggested. I simply urge the Government to act.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, which seeks to prevent commencement of this Bill until an impact assessment is published for the hospitality sector. Delaying commencement of this Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government, of course, carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance.
As I have said before, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. 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 to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seeks to increase the employment allowance for those employed in the hospitality sectors. The Government are taking action as part of this Bill to protect the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that next year, 865,000 employers will pay no employer national insurance at all; more than half of employers see no change, or gain overall, from this package. The specific data the noble Baroness requested is not broken down in the way she asks for.
Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors would add additional complexity to the tax system, and adding further spending pressures would require higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In light of these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
I am grateful for all the thoughtful contributions to this debate and, in particular, to my noble friend Lady Fleet for her impassioned defence of the arts sector, and to the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for standing up for pubs. In particular, I note the contribution on Amendment 49 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
I urge the Minister to consider the amendments we have been debating and to understand the impact on the livelihoods provided by those in the hospitality industry. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I simply want to ask the Minister whether he had changed his view. The impact note came out in November. It was probably drafted based on data relating to before then, when it was far from clear what changes these national insurance measures would precipitate. What we have seen—we have heard from a working retailer today—is that this is having a depressing effect on confidence and jobs across the country. I hope that, before Report, the Minister will reflect on that and give us some assurance as to how the negative effects, which will affect his prime mission of growth, can be dealt with and alleviated.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for community pharmacies.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this, the third day of Committee on this very important Bill. I say at the outset to the Minister and noble Lords that, again, this is a commencement amendment and does not seek in any meaningful way a permanent exemption to this jobs tax. It is merely an opportunity for the Government to think again, based on up-to-date and more contemporary empirical evidence, so that they can study properly a full impact assessment, as the Bill has an impact on a very important part of the healthcare sector: community pharmacies.
The Minister will know that there is significant concern across the whole NHS and the wider healthcare sector about the implications of these fiscal changes for community pharmacies. The figures produced by Community Pharmacy England suggest that these changes alone will generate an extra burden, an extra encumbrance, on community pharmacies of approximately £50 million, even with the changes in the employment allowance. If you strip out the employment allowance, the figure is approximately £74 million. If you add the two other cumulative factors to these fiscal changes, the encumbrance for community pharmacies is going to be very heavy.
Of course, on its own, we welcome the rise in the national minimum wage—we believe that low-paid people should be paid more and have a decent standard of living—but, remember, these burdens are falling on a particular part of the community. This will mean an extra cost of anything between £115 million and £152 million per annum, according to Community Pharmacy England. If you also add in the reduction in the business rates relief as it impacts on operating costs, the overall, universal impact on community pharmacies will be in the region of £200 million—that is, one-fifth of £1 billion.
Let us remember what community pharmacies are: an adjunct to the NHS, in that they are a neighbourhood health service. I accept that Governments have to make tough decisions; in fact, my own party, when it was in government, was not able to support community pharmacies to the level that we would have liked. There has been a real-terms reduction in pharmacy funding from central government since 2015. The lowest number of pharmacies are now open to the public at any time since 2009, which is 16 years ago: 1,250 pharmacies have closed since 2017. What we are talking about today is a policy decision that has at its heart the very viability of this sector.
As noble Lords will know, doctors and dentists are able to defray the costs of their non-domestic rates by direct reimbursement from the National Health Service. That is not the case with pharmacies; in fact, 90% of pharmacies’ work contracts are for NHS reasons and projects, such as dispensing advice and consultancy—principally dispensing.
Let us think about what community pharmacies do for their local communities. They are a lifeline. Flu immunisation, smoking cessation, sexual health services, alcohol misuse interventions, substance misuse services, healthy lifestyles, diet and nutrition, and generic health education—these are all vital functions that community pharmacies carry out. They take a sizeable burden off NHS acute hospital trusts—clinical commissioning groups as was—and, of course, primary care facilities.
They cannot put their prices up. Because they are locked into contractual arrangements, which are fixed, they cannot pass the costs on to the consumer. Often, they cannot make cuts in staffing or the services offered, or make redundancies, without in effect closing the facility—or at least hugely reducing the service that they deliver. They have, over the past 10 or so years, increased service delivery massively. They will put most public services to shame in terms of delivery of productivity in that period; indeed, they are the safety valve for the NHS.
We on this side of the Room are asking not for special favours or for the policy to be junked but for an opportunity for the Government to think again about the special circumstances of community pharmacies. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made an important point: the impact note that the Minister prayed in aid is out of date. I do not think that it has the up-to-date, topical data that it should have for the Government to properly consider, with the evidence available, the policy.
Incidentally, I should tell your Lordships that, naturally, I support the other amendments in this group: the employment allowance variation amendments, in respect of dentists and doctors, and, of course, Amendment 46 on pharmacies especially.
To conclude, this is about using an evidence-based analysis to create an impact assessment; to review the policy, at least; to inform the fairest and most sensible policy formulation; and to protect the interests of a vital part of our healthcare sector. If we do not do that, it will have a major impact on very vulnerable people who are NHS patients and who use the important services of community pharmacies. For that reason, I ask your Lordships to support this amendment and beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment on pharmacies. We must think of the impact. I have spoken to those who have been impacted already and worry that there is an impact not just on community pharmacies, which employ more pharmacists, but on small providers. When we look at what happens in towns and villages across the country, we see that, when a pharmacy closes down, elderly people, families and people looking for their prescriptions have to take a bus and go somewhere else. The impact on town centres of this sort of change can be quite significant. We have 3,560 independent pharmacies today.
In all of our debates today, we have spoken about the impact on each sector and how it might be alleviated, with amendment after amendment proposed from these Benches and from the Liberal Democrats, who spoke earlier in Committee. Barring retail and hospitality, today’s groups of amendments cover what are usually called public services. They are provided by independent providers. Some, such as the early years and hospice sectors, are charitable as well as independent. If they do not provide these services, there will be greater costs to the taxpayer, and they will do so in a much more bureaucratic and less person-sensitive way. The quality will go down and the cover will be broader; in fact, it will not meet the kind of person-to-person approach that we see offered by many independent providers.
I support my noble friend Lord Jackson because we are talking about people and their jobs: 80,000 pharmacists were employed in 2023-24. As well as them, we are thinking of pharmaceutical technicians, of which there are 34,300. These are real people and real jobs, and they are on top of the jobs that we have spoken about day in and day out in this Committee. I implore the Government and the Minister to think about what happens when people’s jobs go: not only do we as communities lose the services that are vital and which we have spoken about; we see an impact on our streets and our communities, and we increase the cost to the taxpayer—that will go further, in addition to the high hike in borrowing and the tax rises that the Government intend. We will see the further damage that will be caused to the economy. I implore the Government to think again.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendments in this group; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for introducing it. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Pharmacy, so this issue is close to my heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, aptly outlined the pressure that community pharmacists are under at the moment and the issues that they face. He also mentioned a lot of facts and figures from Community Pharmacy England and the National Pharmacy Association, which have outlined the impact that these national insurance contributions will have on community pharmacy. The reason an impact assessment will not work is that the data is already out there, in terms of data from the industry itself. On average, every week, 10 community pharmacists are closing. There is a crisis in community pharmacy, which means that pharmacy after pharmacy in communities up and down this country can no longer survive and is falling by the wayside. An impact assessment would be useful only to reiterate the information that is already out there from the industry; it will not stop organisations falling by the wayside every single week.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 44, 45 and 46 and to Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I agree with everything that he said.
Primary care facilities have been hung out to dry. The Government have already acknowledged that the NHS should be exempted from the jobs tax. It is unfortunate that they have made the bizarre decision not to include other healthcare providers, such as GPs, pharmacies and dentists, which serve the same purpose as NHS providers.
We need to get to the bottom of two issues: first, why GPs, pharmacies and dental practices have not been included, as the NHS has, in the exemptions from the increase in employer national insurance contributions; and, secondly, why GPs, pharmacies and dentists will not benefit from any increase in the employment allowance.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told BBC “Question Time” in November:
“GP surgeries are privately-owned partnerships, they’re not part of the public sector”,
and
“they will therefore have to pay”.
However, GPs are recognised as public authorities in existing law, such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000. They may be privately owned partnerships, but that does not reflect how they operate. Not only that but because they are legally classed as public authorities, they will not be eligible for the increased employment allowance, so they will have to pay the full national insurance increase.
Section 2(1) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 states:
“A person cannot qualify for an employment allowance for a tax year if, at any time in the tax year, the person is a public authority which is not a charity”.
Section 2(2) defines a public authority as
“any person whose activities involve, wholly or mainly, the performance of functions (whether or not in the United Kingdom) which are of a public nature”.
GP surgeries, whether they are privately owned partnerships or not, exclusively provide NHS services: their activities wholly involve the performance of public functions. The Minister confirmed last week that the employment allowance does not apply to charities, which my research confirms. Does he agree that the allowance should apply to these other vital services—pharmacies, dentists and GPs? That would be a simple change. Previous Conservative Governments recognised this. We fully funded and offset any increases in employment costs for GPs; this is acknowledged by the British Medical Association.
Given that the Institute of General Practice Management, which represents GP practice managers, estimates that the jobs tax will cost the average GP practice around £20,000 a year, it is all the more vital that we offset these costs by allowing GPs to receive the employment allowance, preferably at an increased rate of £20,000, as my amendment suggested. It may not be much but it might help with non-GP staff in surgeries, in pharmacies and in dentists. I am looking all the time at changes and concessions that might not cost the Government too much, but I do not get the feeling that the Government understand the difficulties that some of these sectors are in.
It is not just GPs that will suffer. Community Pharmacy England estimates the cost, as I think we already heard, at £50 million in total. That is part of the treble whammy that we heard about from my noble friend Lord Jackson. I am especially concerned about this because of the impact of these changes across the private-sector end of healthcare, because its work makes life easier for NHS services, reducing pressure on A&E and on other public health services.
I spoke to a local pharmacist yesterday. He is a worried man. He believes that when the new NICs charges come through, he will have too little left at the end of the period to invest in his shop and his vaccine services. So, he will be lacking the crucial application of capital to keep the business up to date and serviceable. He will also look to reduce hours. At present, he is open early and late, providing a superb service to the local community—indefatigable, as he was through Covid. I have to say that the pharmacy in my local Wiltshire village is already closing on Saturday, and it is a half-hour drive to another or to the local A&E. Multiply these types of decision by the hundreds of thousands of pharmacies, dentists and GP surgeries across the country, and you can see that the Government’s failure to compensate for the NICs increases is an act of self-harm. Can the Minister therefore confirm that, as a minimum, the Government will include GPs, pharmacies and dentists, who provide NHS services for the public benefit, in the employment allowance?
Lord Scriven (LD)
Just for absolute clarity, community pharmacists can claim the employment allowance. Of the other two services the noble Baroness mentioned, GPs cannot but dentists can if their NHS work is below 50%. It is important that we get that absolutely correct for the record.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was actually asking the question about this, as we did on charities. The Minister confirmed the position very helpfully last time, and I am asking him to clarify the position and look positively at trying to extend this. I am delighted that some community pharmacies get the employment allowance and would like to see it increased to alleviate difficulties in the sorts of small chemists I was talking about. If we can find another way, I would be delighted as well, but this 50% rule seems a bit odd, and I wonder whether the Minister could clarify or have a look at it. Frankly, it was very good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in view of his role in community pharmacies, and, more worryingly, to learn from him just how many pharmacies are closing. When I was in retail and we had pharmacies, there was actually a battle to buy extra licences so that more pharmacies could be opened. If it is going in the other direction, that is not good news for our healthcare services, which we all care so much about.
I look forward to a positive response from the Minister on this important area, which is complicated.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which seeks to prevent commencement of the Bill until an impact assessment is published for community pharmacies. Delaying its commencement would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.
The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have said before, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. 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 taxation and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek to increase the employment allowance for those employed in primary care, including in GP surgeries, dentist surgeries and pharmacies. The distinction between those in the public sector who will be compensated and those who will not follows existing practice and is the same as the distinction that the previous Government used for their health and social care levy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked specifically about eligibility for the employment allowance. Eligibility is not determined by sector but depends on the make-up of an individual business’s work. HMRC guidance explains that this is based on whether an organisation is doing 50% or more of its work in the public sector. It is therefore down to individual organisations to determine their eligibility for any given year. The employment allowance was introduced in 2014 by the previous Government. This Government have not changed the eligibility rules on the employment allowance in any way, beyond removing the £100,000 threshold.
The revenue raised from the measures in the Bill will play a critical role in restoring economic stability and funding the NHS. As a result of measures in the Bill and the wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive over £20 billion extra over two years to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. Primary care providers—in general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eyecare—are important independent contractors which provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult each sector about what services it provides, and what money it is entitled to in return under its contract. As in previous years, this will be dealt with as part of that process.
The Government have announced a proposed £889 million uplift for general practice in 2025-26 and have set out the proposed areas of reform which will help us to deliver on our manifesto commitments. This is the largest uplift to GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework and means that we are reversing the recent trend, with a rising share of total NHS resources going to general practice. We have started consulting with the General Practitioners Committee England of the British Medical Association on the 2025-26 GP contract and will consider a range of proposed policy changes. These will be announced in the usual way, following the close of the consultation later this year.
The Department of Health has entered into consultation with Community Pharmacy England regarding the 2024-25 and 2025-26 funding contractual framework. The final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way following this consultation. The NHS in England invests around £3 billion on dentistry every year. NHS pharmaceutical, ophthalmic and dental allocations for integrated care systems for 2025-26 have been published alongside NHS planning guidance.
In light of these points, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Again, for the clarity of the record, the Minister has just said about GPs something which completely contradicts what it says on WWW.GOV.UK. It is about whether a GP practice can claim employment allowance. It says:
“There is no entitlement to the Employment Allowance, because the majority of the work done, is wholly or mainly of a public nature”.
Since it says on GOV.UK that GPs cannot claim the employment allowance, can the Minister write to the Committee to clarify the contradictions between the website and what he has just said in his answer?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will happily write, because it is an important point and deserves clarification. Listening to what the noble Lord read out, I do not think the statements are contradictory, because the website is absolutely referring to the 50% or more point. I think it is drawing a conclusion from that, given that most of them are doing more than 50%, but I do not think they are contradictory.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I quote again exactly what it says, which is that
“there is no entitlement to the Employment Allowance”
for GPs. That is from “Eligibility for Employment Allowance: further employer guidance” on GOV.UK. It makes it clear that there is no entitlement to the employment allowance for GPs.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said, I am more than happy to write to clarify that. What it goes on to say suggests it is consistent with that. Perhaps that first sentence is incorrect but I will write to the Committee to clarify.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It would be helpful if the Minister clarified that. I am concerned about this backward-lookingness that tends to be a feature of our discussions, because we are trying to look forward and make sure that growth stops flatlining, so that this economy grows in the coming months and years. Saying that a particular rule on employment was laid down in the past and therefore that the Government are not going to change it is a mistake.
In this area, there is a lot of evidence of a problem. The NHS has been compensated for these steep increases. The private sector part of the health services sector, which I know the Minister’s Secretary of State and his advisers think can play an important part in the future, is being sold down the river. That seems to be a pity; we should take this opportunity to try and do something to improve things.
I withdraw my amendment—no, I have not moved it. Forgive me.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
People are withdrawing their amendments before even moving them.
If I could beg the indulgence of the Committee briefly, I wonder what the Liberal Democrats’ view on this policy is because I have a Liberal Democrat press release dated 16 December, entitled, “Liberal Democrats table amendment to exempt health and care providers from NICs hike”. Many Liberal Democrat MPs in the other place are quoted. I was not able to discern it in his remarks but is the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, against the whole policy with regard to community pharmacies and NICs, or just against the concept of doing a proper, thorough and robust empirical analysis and impact assessment?
Lord Scriven (LD)
I understand that the noble Lord may have had other appointments on day one in Committee, but if he had been here then he would have seen that we are totally against it. We gave explanations of how extra taxes could have been done.
While I am on my feet, just to clarify for the Minister, I have looked a bit further at the website and what he said is absolutely correct. The 90% that I was referring to was a specific example of a number of people employed.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. I am of course still happy to write, so that we have absolutely clarified the point.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
We have established that an epistle will be oncoming from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I am glad he has clarified that. I just think—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Perhaps I may interrupt. I really think it was appropriate that we did not remake the speeches that we made extensively on days one and two. I am sorry if people were unable to attend or contribute on those days, but it is not sensible for us to continuously repeat the same statements that we have made over and over again. We have tried to observe that, out of respect for the Committee, and an assumption that those who are interested in what we had to say would have looked at Hansard.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is rather tetchy about that. I am seeking clarification of the Liberal Democrat policy, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has given me a very clear explanation, for which I am inordinately grateful. Perhaps I can now move on to speak to my Amendment 34.
I heard the Minister and, notwithstanding what colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have said, I still think that he did not adequately address the issue of the data and the response since the Budget on this particular policy with this particular healthcare sector. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made a very cogent and valid point that it is not good enough to just keep saying, “We have no intention of publishing an impact assessment; that is the end of the debate”. That is not discharging the proper fiduciary duty of Ministers to make sure that they are pursuing the correct financial policies and know the impact they will have on individuals in the NHS and wider healthcare sector. That needs to be looked at again; perhaps it will be.
While I am on my feet, for the avoidance of doubt, I did attend on previous days in Committee. I was there, and I moved an amendment on day one, I think, should noble Lords want to read Hansard. With that caveat made, I feel duty bound to beg leave to withdraw my amendment, subject to further discussion on Report.