Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Thursday 6th February 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate National 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-R Running list of amendments – 6 February 2025 - (6 Feb 2025)
Lord Altrincham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for schools and universities.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 35 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Barran and to support Amendment 43 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. Amendment 35 would delay the commencement of Clause 2 until an impact assessment had been published to fully assess the impact that this tax will have on schools and universities. Amendment 43 increases the employment allowance to £20,000 for universities.
The Government have quite a lot going on in education, with changes to private schools, academies, standards, teacher recruitment and mental health services. This Bill introduces a tax on education, breaking with the long tradition of avoiding taxes on education where possible, which are to the detriment of children and society. This tax increase will be implemented in the middle of a school year, which will put the most vulnerable schools at risk, regardless of how they are funded later. The policy has clearly failed to consider the impact an immediate tax rise will have. The IFS recently published a study indicating that, in the 2025-26 academic year, costs will outweigh funding. Since staffing costs tend to take up a large proportion of a school’s budget, there can be no doubt that this jobs tax will play a role in this funding crisis.
I turn to universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has mentioned previously, this tax increase will cost universities an estimated £372 million a year, as calculated by Universities UK. This is quite a vulnerable sector, as we know. For example, Coventry University has shared that the increase in fees will provide £1.5 million to £2 million in additional income, but the increase in national insurance that it faces will cost £3 million. The Government have given with one hand and taken with the other, as universities expected this fee increase to support their finances. Instead, it will be more than wiped out by the tax increase, when universities across the country already face financial difficulties.
Ultimately, our students will be forced to pay the price for these decisions, whether through further increased fees or a reduction in teaching staff for universities to sustain themselves. It is disheartening that the Government are not supporting our young people to pursue higher education. I am concerned that this group is already quite vulnerable in society, with youth unemployment sitting at around 14% in the final quarter of 2024, compared with the national unemployment rate of 4.4%. We talked about this and the problem of NEETs earlier in Committee. The rate of unemployment for our young people is already three times higher than the national average. To increase costs on education will leave the more highly educated people in this group who cannot find a job in more debt than before. In the 2022-23 academic year, there were 2.9 million students across our universities and nearly 400,000 staff. This Bill will have a negative consequence on all of them.
I urge the Government to think carefully about the choices they are making and the impacts this will have across society. We ask them to pause and consider the impact on schools and universities, just to be sure that it does not affect performance, given the vulnerability of young people at the moment and the Government’s objective to increase the number of teachers in the system. I beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group: Amendment 35 from my noble friend Lady Barran, which asks for the new employer rates to begin after the tax year in which an impact assessment is published in respect of schools and universities, and Amendment 43 from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, to which my noble friend Lord Altrincham has added his support and which asks for a higher education allowance. I do so not only because the education of children is an obligation for their parents, who must ensure that children of compulsory school age are receiving an education—most do this in schools—but because, in this country, with its tradition of support for freedom of conscience as an enabling state, not a domineering one, Governments have gone hand in glove with the right of parents to decide what sort of education is best for their children. In these matters, the state has enabled parents to choose, rather than forcing them into state institutions through financial penalties or totalitarian laws.
That view has been part of the political arrangements for education when, irrespective of who is in power, the tradition has been that, where the law requires, the state enables. Barring the often political and ideological debates over education, it has done so through, among other ways, funding. Initially, it was a grant in the mid-19th century. That was followed in the 1870s by Gladstone’s Liberal Party introducing the obligation on parents of elementary education, but he refused the demands of what he called the “Prussian element” in his own party, who wanted to supersede the voluntary schools and replace them with a comprehensive, uniform state system. Thus, he allowed to survive, and indeed encouraged, what we now call voluntary schools: independent schools and Church schools which have educated children in this country for centuries. He expressly supported the right of parents to choose the best education for their children. Voluntary schools would be supported and supplemented by the new board or state schools.
That principle continued to inform education law in this country throughout the 20th century. Indeed, Britain’s history is a proud one. The education of children and young adults was often at the public’s expense, supported by those who could or would pay—be that the monarch, the guilds, the city corporations, the ratepayers or, later, in our own centuries, the taxpayer. In fact, until relatively recently, this country was an exemplar in educating its people irrespective of their parents’ means.
Under Elizabeth I, that tradition was recognised in law at the very start of the 17th century, when education was designated in law as a charity. Under the Tudors, some of the most famous schools had been just that: public schools. Winchester and then Eton were founded by the monarchs of the day to educate, as I recall, 70 poor boys so that their school education would equip them to go on to one of the universities of the day and be employed, I think, mainly as professional clerks in the Church, at the monarch’s service—a precursor to the Civil Service.
Anyway, many of those schools—Anglican, Catholic and dissenter—continue to flourish today, as Gladstone would have wanted. Not only were these schools regarded as the foundation of the education system, they were supported and encouraged in law through public funds. However, even if the funding systems changed, they were never penalised by discriminatory tax, as will happen under what this Government propose, not only in the extension of VAT but in the discriminatory penalty of the new NIC rates.
Despite stiff competition, they continue to be popular with parents, educating hundreds and thousands of children across the whole country. An impact assessment would reveal the true cost to children’s education and allow for a pause before this unthinking rush to destroy what works well and, as we have heard many times in this Room, continues to supplement what the state does and what the general taxpayer can afford.
There are 2,600 independent schools in the UK, mostly catering for the early years and primary stages of school. They educate more than 620,000 children, nearly 7% of UK school pupils and half of the parents who were at maintained schools: 25% in Edinburgh, 13% in London and 20% of all sixth-formers in the UK. They teach well. I will not go through the Ofsted reports on each of these schools but, on the whole, they do very well—better than maintained schools do on the whole, I am afraid, although some excellent maintained schools have done wonders recently; I take my hat off to them. They provide a school education to the highest potential of each individual student—just as the principles of the 1944 Act put it—which their parents judged was right for them.
I understand that one policy of this Government is an ambitious concentration on growing the public sector, with large pay increases—an aim of this Government that may go counter to the priority of economic growth for the whole economy. Perhaps the Minister would like to say, now or in writing, how many of the 28,000 new public sector appointments between July’s and October’s Budgets included new teachers and new doctors. Without good-enough teachers in our schools, maintained or independent, children at every stage of their education—early years and compulsory—will suffer.
Unless the Government listen and think again on these modest amendments, children’s education at this vital early and compulsory stage will suffer, as some independent and voluntary schools will be forced to lay off staff and will probably try to raise their fee income to make ends meet. They are the target of penal taxation, with the imposition of VAT and the new employer NIC hike. They are discriminated against because maintained schools will have these rises funded.
These amendments do not seek to run a coach and four through the measure. They are not demanding the outright abolition of the employer’s new NICs or the employment allowance, but they seek to improve the legislation. Wherever they are educated, we see the fruits of an education suited to the individual child. It is an essential stepping stone to adult life in which the recipient flourishes, and so the whole of society benefits. Education is not only a private good for a child; it is a public good for all of us and all who live in our country.
These are modest amendments designed to assess and ameliorate the impact on the independent sector—not to deny the Government their measure, but to do due diligence and mitigate the damage of an otherwise flawed measure. I hope that the Minister and the Government, in the spirit of the historic Labour Party, will be at one with the tradition of responsibility for the education of the young, in whatever institutions of the country they inherit, and will stop short of a new tax levy that will penalise those institutions and the education of our children. I hope that they will assess fairly the impact of the proposed measure on independent schools and will think again.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 35. I declare an interest as a member of council at UCL.
On the first day of Committee, I spoke in support of my noble friend Lord Storey’s amendment on education, including universities, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, mentioned. That amendment would have excluded specified groups, including universities, from the rise in the employer’s contribution. We prefer exclusion to the delays promoted by Amendment 35. We prefer exclusion because of the disastrous damage that this Bill will quickly inflict on, among other things, our higher education system. We are uncertain whether similar damage will be inflicted on our further education system. Some additional money appears to be promised to FE, but it is not clear how it is going to be allocated. There is talk, for example, of it being used to fund a pay rise.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the great value of UK higher education in creating opportunity and social mobility, as an engine for growth in our economy and in supporting local communities. The Budget provided £6.1 billion of support for core research and confirmed the Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement, a major reform to student finance that will expand access to high-quality, flexible education and training for adults throughout their working lives.
The Secretary of State for Education has also confirmed that maximum fees will rise in the academic year 2025-26 for the first time since 2017, from £9,250 to £9,535 for a standard full-time undergraduate course. This was a difficult decision that demonstrates that the Government are serious about the need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked for some specific figures in terms of the additional funding; I will happily write to him with those.
This amendment would, however, introduce new pressures that would have to be met by either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In addition, creating new thresholds or rates based on what sector a business is in would introduce distortion and additional complexity into the tax system. Likewise, delaying commencement of this Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and, as with the previous amendment, would therefore 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 said in previous days of this Committee, 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 previous changes to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.
In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, before he sits down, would the Minister care to comment on the impact—indeed, the double whammy—of taxation for the independent school sector? After assessing the imposition of that, it is now going to be impacted by national insurance too. Can he also comment on the impact on the teachers in terms of pension provision?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I apologise—I did not catch the start of the noble Lord’s question. I am not quite sure what the question is.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The Minister did not comment on the impact on the independent schools sector, which is already reeling from the impact of the VAT that has been imposed on it and the assessments that have been made, including independent schools talking about pension provisions for teachers.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not sure that I would share that characterisation from the noble Lord of the VAT policy. We have published an impact assessment for both that policy and this policy. We have no intention of publishing further impact assessments.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this group. I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor for reminding us that education is a public good and for her little history lesson on the delicacy of our educational settlement, not just in the 19th century but going all the way back to Queen Elizabeth I and before; it was most helpful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who reminded us that, for this section of the Bill and more broadly, the consequence of these tax rises is policy-driven unemployment. We already know that jobs are going to come out. The noble Lord pointed out that 10,000 jobs may come out of higher education; with 10,000 here or there, the numbers could build up quite quickly.
It is in that context that we ask the Government to approach this area with great caution. The Minister has responded that they have looked very carefully and are aware of the issues, and they are, in their judgment, proceeding with great care. In the light of the Minister’s comments, I thank him and beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2A) After section 1(2), insert— “(2A) For an employer in the social care sector, the employment allowance for the tax year is—(a) £20,000, or(b) if less, an amount equal to the total amount of the liabilities mentioned in subsection (1)(b) which are not excluded liabilities.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Neville-Rolfe to this Clause, would increase the employment allowance for employers in the social care sector from £10,500 to £20,000. This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s openness to supporting those providing social care and the cost of that to the Exchequer.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham, and to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. These amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they represent a critical step in recognising and supporting the social care sector, which remains indispensable to our society.
Amendment 47 proposes an increase in the employment allowance available to employers in the social care sector, raising it from £10,500 to £20,000 per tax year. This increase is of profound importance. Our social care providers are grappling with rising operational costs, staffing challenges and the ever-present need to deliver high-quality care to some of our most vulnerable citizens. By enhancing the employment allowance, we are providing smaller employers with essential financial relief that will help to sustain their operations in the light of the brutal national insurance increases, retain skilled and valuable staff and invest in the quality improvements that our social care users so desperately need.
For too long, the funding constraints on social care providers have meant that many have had to make painful compromises, such as reducing staff numbers, cutting back on training or deferring vital infrastructure improvements. These compromises ultimately diminish the quality of care provided and place additional strain on an already overstretched system. Increasing the allowance would acknowledge that social care is not a peripheral service, but a core pillar of our public support system, deserving of the same robust backing as the NHS, which is being compensated for the additional NICs charges.
Moreover, this amendment recognises the unique cost structures within the social care sector. Unlike other industries, social care providers face significant regulatory and operational burdens. They must meet stringent care standards, invest in specialised training and often operate in environments where margins are exceptionally thin. They are the backbone of a sector that touches so many lives. The Local Government Association estimates that the NICs charges create £1.77 billion in additional costs for councils, with £637 million for directly employed staff and £1.13 billion through indirect costs, via commissioned providers, including £628 million for adult social care alone. These are big figures.
There is also an important symbolic dimension to these amendments. By focusing on the social care sector, we are sending a clear message that the care of our elderly, our disabled and our most vulnerable is a national priority. This sector has often been on the back foot, underfunded and overlooked. Today we are recognising its importance and taking concrete steps to bolster it. In doing so, we honour the dedication of countless social care workers who deliver care with compassion, often under extremely challenging circumstances.
In conclusion, these amendments will provide a much-needed boost to the employment allowance for social care providers and introduce a mechanism of accountability that will ensure that the measures are delivering the intended benefits. They are a testament to our commitment to support a sector that is foundational in the well-being of our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these amendments, recognising that those struggling with disabilities and an ever-ageing community, partly thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, need our help. We need to invest in a stronger, fairer and more caring society.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 47 and my own Amendment 65, which is yet another request for an impact assessment. I raised the issues that small businesses and charities will have at our last session, but I shall focus on the social care sector, for some of the reasons that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has explained. This sector faces particular challenges, and to apply a one-size-fits-all to every employer in the UK is in this instance simply heartless and smacks of a policy rushed through without proper consideration of the particular issues in the sector.
The recent Budget, while providing additional funding to social care, does not go far enough to meet the needs of a sector facing increased costs from the rising national living wage and employers’ NI contributions. There is the £600 million grant, which we assume is to be shared between adult and children’s social care, but it is far from sufficient to address the estimated £3.7 billion increase in costs facing providers due to the changes announced in the Budget, which represent the 10.6% increase in pay from April 2025.
We know of course that councils will be expected to fill much of this gap through council tax precepts and local revenue, but, even with the £600 million grant, there is still a £1.3 billion shortfall that local authorities have. That figure relates only to the basic costs of providing care, with no consideration of inflation, the resources required to address ongoing workforce challenges, or the increased capacity, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned, of a growing ageing population. Because of this, there are reasons to believe that the estimates of a £2.24 billion gap for older person residential care is a conservative figure. If this is added to the homecare deficit, reported to be £1.76 billion, and the unquantified gap for working-age adults, the total gap between the average fee paid by local authorities and the actual costs of providing care could be significantly higher than the £4 billion.
I appreciate that these figures are so large that it is possibly difficult to take them all in and relate to them. If I may, I shall look on a micro basis at organisations I happen to know about personally. I am sure that each of us has a connection with such an organisation locally. In my case, I have connections with Jewish Care, which is Anglo-Jewry’s leading health and social care charity for the Jewish community in London and the south-east. It touches the lives of 12,000 people every week—including, of course, Holocaust survivors.
Jewish Care operates nine care homes, which provide a range of services, including fabulous residential care and also dementia care, mental health care and nursing care. It manages four retirement living schemes and an assisted living scheme, nine community centres and three centres for people living with dementia. My interest is that I was a trustee of Jewish Care, and I am still a proud fundraiser for it. I have been a patron for more than 25 years. I am grateful to Jewish Care for sharing with me its concerns, which reflect those of the whole industry.
In context, Jewish Care raises some £20 million in revenue donations—voluntary gifts. The total increase in workforce costs as a result of this Budget is estimated by Jewish Care at £1.1 million. The increase in the percentage for NICs from 13.8% to 15% increases the workforce costs by £400,000 and the lowering of the threshold, which we all know about, results in a further £700,000—hence £1.1 million.
Of course, it is disproportionately affected because it is a large employer with very many part-time staff. The immediate impact is that carers’ salaries will not be raised, as would otherwise have been the case. It will also force the charity to make choices about how care homes are operated and, just as importantly, to divert investments in other community-focused services. One specific example is that, until the announcement of the NI increases, it was planning to open a much-needed dementia day centre. It was all planned and ready to go, but these additional costs have forced Jewish Care to put that on hold. This is real damage that the Government are causing to people’s lives, and it is particularly poignant because both Wes Streeting and the Prime Minister proclaimed themselves, as recently as last June, just before the election, to be huge supporters of this charity and its objectives.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am speaking here as a winding speaker. The Committee will know that, on Monday, we discussed this whole sector in great detail, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has echoed the numbers and essentially the substance of that first discussion.
We on these Benches take a very different conclusion about an impact assessment with a potential delay attached and £10,000 per institution. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, gave an example of one of his particular interests facing a £1.1 million additional charge, so I do not think that £10,000 is going to make a ha’porth of difference to it. We think that the proposals are completely inadequate. We have always said that we need the exclusion of this whole sector from the changes in the NICs levies, and on that we stand our ground.
I shall say again to the Minister, who often replies that the Government have given an extra £600 million to this sector, that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and I have exactly the same figures, and the cost of the NICs Bill alone for this sector, according to the Nuffield Trust, is £900 million. So we are already £300 million behind, and that £600 million was meant to fill a whole lot of other cost gaps that continue for this sector, which is so crucial to our society.
I was interested to listen to the Conservatives on this issue. I was looking it up today: migrant workers make up 32% of care workers in England. Those figures are from November 2024. As I understand the policy announcement today, I am sure that the Conservative Party thinks that these are wonderful people to be able to look after our elderly and empty the bedpans, but they will be throwing them out of the country as soon as they have finished work, because they will not be permitted to become British citizens. So to me there is some interesting contradiction in this respect for the individuals and the assessment that they are not fit to be British. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, sees no conflict in that, but I suspect that many others will see it, and I am sure that my party does: when we tell these people that they are valued and respected, we really mean it.
Once again, we do not think that these amendments are adequate to the need, and we stand our ground on the amendments that we first moved—but then, of course, under Committee rules, withdrew—on Monday.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I shall address the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seek to increase the value of the employment allowance for those providing social care, and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seeks to require the laying in Parliament of an impact assessment on social care providers 12 months after commencement and every 12 months subsequently.
As a result of the measures in this Bill, combined with wider Budget measures, the Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care. This funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector. Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors would introduce new pressures that would require either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. It would also add complexity to the tax system.
The Government of course carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have said previously, 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. In light of those points, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I hope he will take away noble Lords’ concerns about the social care sector, because there seems to be agreement that we have a problem. I thank my noble friend Lord Leigh for his careful analysis and his examples of individual carers from Jewish Care, the Voluntary Organisations Disability Group and Age UK, whose work in Wales and Scotland he also mentioned.
There is a strong case for looking at this area again. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, may differ on how we should do it, but there is agreement on the problem. The Minister confirmed the figure that I used at Second Reading, explaining that the cost of NICs would outweigh the £800 million for social care—which we were very glad to see in the Budget. That is not a great net position.
The proposal for an annual assessment of the impact on social care is not a bureaucratic requirement, but a vital mechanism of accountability and continuous improvement. By compelling the Chancellor and the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an annual report detailing the impact of these provisions, we can ensure that there is an ongoing dialogue between policymakers and those on the front lines of care delivery.
It serves several key purposes. First, it provides transparency, which I think the House is increasingly interested in, and allows Parliament and, by extension, the public to understand how policy changes are affecting social care providers in real time. This level of openness is essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring that government policies are working as intended. Secondly, it creates a framework for evidence-based policy-making. By regularly reviewing the impact of the increased employment allowance, the Government can adjust their approach to ensure that their measures are effective. Finally, importantly, it signals to social care providers that the Government are committed to monitoring and supporting their performance through not just lip service but concrete measures. The challenges facing the social care sector are not only multifaceted but serious, and demographic changes mean that the demand for social care services is set to rise dramatically in the years ahead.
An annual impact assessment would ensure that we remain vigilant. It would provide a structured opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the allowance increase and other changes, to identify unintended consequences and to take corrective action if necessary. I have spoken at length but, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment for today.
Baroness Noakes
“(2A) After section 1(2), insert— “(2A) If the person is a public authority, the amount of the employment allowance in subsection (1)(2)(a) is £20,000.(2B) A public authority means 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.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give a higher employment allowance to persons carrying out functions of a public nature.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 55 and 56. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for adding her name to these amendments.
They deal with two aspects of the employment allowance: public authorities and the employment of people with personal or household care. We heard earlier in Committee that, under the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014, the employment allowance is not available to public authorities and that the term “public authority” includes bodies in the private sector whose activities are at least 50% the performance of functions of a public nature. GPs and NHS dentists have been cited as among those caught by this definition. Amendment 55 would remove this exception for public authorities so that they would be able to claim the employment allowance and Amendment 54 would create a £20,000 level of employment allowance for public authorities.
The effect of this Bill is that all public authorities will pay the higher rate of national insurance calculated on the lower secondary threshold, but none of them will get an employment allowance. Amendment 55 would give them an employment allowance of £10,500, while Amendment 54 would increase that to £20,000. We know that the Chancellor intends to spend around £5 billion each year on reimbursing public authorities, which are classified to the public sector. Since my amendment would reduce the national insurance costs borne by those public sector authorities, it would simply reduce the amount of money that the Chancellor would have to reimburse in her money-go-round and offer a practical benefit for public authorities in the private sector. This would not be a full exemption, which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has argued for in relation to GPs and dentists, but it would soften the blow of the national insurance increases. If there ever was a justification for excluding GPs and dentists from the employment allowance, that went out of the window when the Chancellor introduced her jobs tax.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I think that the amendments we discussed on Monday would have covered the public authorities issue but I am not absolutely sure, so clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful. Can he also clarify for us the protections put in place for micro-businesses? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is usually right when she identifies these issues. It is beginning to sound as though the sector is somehow not qualifying for that level of protection. It would be most helpful to understand that.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her amendments in this group; for her extremely well-made case as to how we might look to soften the blow for public services and the private sector; and for drawing attention to so many areas on the edge of public services that will be affected, such as dentists and childcare jobs. This is where the impact will be widely felt across the country.
On Amendments 54 and 55, the Government have stated that the purpose of this Bill is to repair the public finances. A key aspect of this plan is to ensure that public authorities can continue to operate efficiently without being overly burdened by rising employment costs. By increasing the employment allowance for public authorities to £20,000, we would reduce the financial pressure on them to provide essential services. Increasing the employment allowance specifically helps offset rising staffing costs, which are expected only to grow as the Government invest more in public services.
As the Government focus on boosting public sector capacity to meet future challenges in depopulation, the higher allowance would support that goal. It would provide greater flexibility to focus on improving service quality and enhancing delivery without worrying about escalating employment costs. The proposal aligns with the Government’s goal of unlocking economic growth. The ability to support and maintain a strong and capable public sector workforce means that these services can continue to contribute positively to the wider economy. This tax increase will inevitably drive policy-driven unemployment, which we have talked about, as already evidenced in the recent jobs numbers.
I understand that the Minister believes that the Government had no flexibility when they produced their Budget and made these tax choices. However, as the months have passed, the economic situation has changed and there has been quite a bit of wage inflation. As such, these proposals to increase the employment allowance could be cost-neutral to the amount of money raised, and should certainly not be immediately dismissed as unfunded policy decisions.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, seek to expand the eligibility of the employment allowance to domestic workers and the public sector, and to increase the value of the employment allowance for organisations carrying out functions of a public nature.
As we discussed on the previous day in Committee, the employment allowance was introduced in 2014 by the previous Government. Currently, eligible small businesses with employer national insurance bills of £100,000 or less receive £5,000 of employment allowance, which means that they can deduct £5,000 from the total employer national insurance that they pay on their employees’ wages. This Bill increases that employment allowance to £10,500 from April 2025. It also seeks to expand the employment allowance to all eligible employers by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold, which will simplify and reform employer national insurance so that all eligible employers now benefit. All of the remaining eligibility criteria remain unchanged.
As has been the case since the employment allowance was introduced in 2014, organisations operating wholly or mainly in the public sector are not eligible to claim it. As we discussed during the previous session in Committee, eligibility for the employment allowance is not determined by sector but depends on the make-up of an individual business’s work. The HMRC guidance explains that this is based on whether an organisation is doing 50% or more of its work in the public sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked for some specific figures in relation to that. The number of those claiming the employment allowance varies from year to year because the amount of work done in the public sector varies from year to year. It is for individual businesses to determine the amount of work that they do in the public sector, therefore data is not collected in the way the noble Baroness asks for.
The noble Baroness also asked for specific additional assessments. As I have said many times before—she is no doubt sick of me saying so—the Government have provided the impact assessments that we intend to provide and do not intend to provide any further such assessments. I am not aware of any plans for a specific information campaign, in the way that she asks for, but I am very happy to take her suggestion back and discuss it with colleagues.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I thought that the Minister was about to sit down, so I apologise if I moved too soon. I would just like to clarify something. In the situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, where somebody employs a nanny, a carer or whatever else, I have always worked on the assumption that the employment allowance at £10,900 would, in effect, negate any employer’s national insurance on that individual. If that is not correct, it would be helpful for me to understand that. I thought that that was how the micro-business protection worked; if I have got it wrong, please let me know.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think that I have an answer for the noble Baroness but I would like to double-check it so, if she does not mind, I will write to her to be absolutely certain on this point.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
In conclusion, the Government have provided £4.7 billion of funding to support public sector employers with increased employer national insurance. Expanding eligibility for, or increasing the value of, the allowance would come with additional costs and would reduce the revenue generated by this Bill; this would then require either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In the light of these points, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I am not going to thank the Minister for that reply because he has given us no more information and no justification for why employers who employ people for domestic or household care should not get the employment allowance. He has given no explanation as to why private sector public authorities do not get an employment allowance, other than it was put in the 2014 Act. Both these categories are significantly affected by the other contents of this Bill, so I had hoped that the Minister would respond with some rationale for why the Government think it is right that these categories of employer should not qualify for the employment allowance.
This is rather typical of the way in which the Minister has conducted the whole of this Committee. Since this is the last time we will speak in it, I would like to record that it has been more than disappointing. We normally expect Ministers to give us, or offer to provide, information. We do not normally expect Ministers simply to repeat, parrot-like, three or four set lines that are shuffled for whatever the particular amendment is, but that is what we have received. We are in Committee, so I will of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I would like to record that this is no way to run a Committee.
“Review of effect on people with protected characteristicsThe Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of the measures in this Act on people with protected characteristics.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will also speak to Amendment 69, which is also in my name. Amendment 68, like a number of other amendments that we have discussed today, calls for a review of the impact of the increase in employers’ national insurance, particularly the effect on people with protected characteristics.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, these two amendments require the Chancellor to prepare a report to consider the effects of the Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions on the climate and on those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
I will be brief. I come at the matter from a different perspective. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is often arguing in favour of more tax and less growth, which obviously is not where I come from. Equalities are well looked after by the 2010 Act and we have equality assessments on nearly everything. I have suggested on some occasions to the Minister that a growth and productivity assessment would be a useful addition to getting delivery of his number one mission of growth.
The impacts of this Bill will be felt by employers and particular sectors, including part-timers, many of whom are women, as the noble Baroness has said. We have discussed that at great length. However, a review of the kind that she proposes is a huge stretch. It sounds bureaucratic and speculative. I also believe that it is inappropriate to try to improve work on climate change in this Bill by yet more bureaucratic processes on top of those which are already set out in the Environment Act. We need to focus instead on the impact of this brutal jobs tax on the sectors that are smarting under its prospect. That is what we are doing. I look forward to hearing how the Minister feels about these amendments.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address the amendment seeking to require the Government to review the impact of the measures in the Bill on people with protected characteristics. The Government carefully consider the impact of all decisions on those sharing protected characteristics, in line with our legal obligations and our commitment to greater fairness and opportunity. The Government are committed to meeting their obligation to the public sector equality duty, and Ministers are confident that the Government have met the obligation for the changes in this Bill.
Turning to the amendment requiring a review of the impact of the Bill on the environment and green jobs, as I have said previously, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in their 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 the previous changes to national insurance and previous changes to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments. In light of these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the comments made earlier about the quality of debate and response that we have received from the Government in this Committee. I must express agreement with those statements. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for responding here. I point out that these amendments very much reflect her Amendment 64, which concerns the impact on economic growth, so I am not sure that the arguments about increased bureaucracy and resource cost will apply equally to her amendments.
None the less, let me pick up the points made by the Minister. He said, in referring to the effect on people with protected characteristics, that the Government are considering this carefully. I invite this Committee to consider some of the reports that have come out this week on the lack of trust—among young people in particular—in our Government and our so-called democracy. If we are to win back trust and have people feel that the Government are acting for the common good, not for a few special interests, the Government will need to show their workings. If the Government do indeed care, they need to demonstrate that they care, which is the kind of thing that this review would do.
On Amendment 69, I say again in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the economy is a complete subset of the environment. There are no jobs on a dead planet. There is not much point in assessing economic growth if there is nothing living for it to grow in. We are in Committee so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I will be back.
Lord Fuller
“Impact of this Act on local authoritiesThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the cost of the provisions of this Act on local authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to respond to concerns about increased costs for local authorities.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, since the Great Reform Act of 1832, local authorities have been an integral part of our nation. Joseph Chamberlain unleashed the powers of municipal entrepreneurialism in the 1800s, bringing gas and clean water to the growing metropolis of Birmingham. A new council in Stevenage was created for the first new town, complete with a traffic-free zone opened by Her Majesty the Queen; I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has done her bit to shape that town since. To bring us right up to date, the leader of Cornwall Council—another Taylor: my friend Linda Taylor, who has announced that she is stepping down in May—has championed a space port in her county. I congratulate her on those efforts and thank her for her service to the local government family. All those activities are about the 140 things that local authorities do for every family in every street and in every neighbourhood.
For the past 14 years, I have been a vice-chairman of the Local Government Association’s economy and resources panel. Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I led all the district councils in England for our respective parties during Covid, and I remain a councillor, so I know that council finances in England are under pressure like never before. Reductions in grant funding, increases in the scale and complexity of service demand, and the recent spike in inflation and wage costs have created the perfect storm for our town halls.
The fundamental challenge facing the sector is that cost and demand pressures are rising faster than funding. Although inflation has fallen steadily since its peak in 2022-23, significant cost and demand pressures remain in the system in council services. In essence, council revenues tend to grow linearly with the growth in the wider economy; lately, however, costs have grown geometrically in councils, with the demands from homelessness, children’s social care, adult social care and home-to-school transport growing fast and likely to get even worse. The Covid overlay is, of course, a further aggravation.
There comes a moment where the lines of income and demand diverge so much that the gap becomes unbridgeable. That moment was already upon us before the national insurance announcements, and I want to explain its serious and consequential effects. Of the 140 activities undertaken by councils, three are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all the cost: social care in adults and children, and special educational needs. These pressures have seen the greatest increase in cost.
We should get some numbers on the record for the Minister. Increases in cost and demand in adult social care have risen by £3.7 billion—that is, 18%—in the five years since 2019. Spending on children’s social care has increased by 25.7% in real terms in the five years from 2019 to the current year. Growing numbers of children with education, health and care plans mean that money spent on home-to-school transport has risen by 62.7% in the five years to this year. Taken together, the increased demand for services for children with special educational needs and disabilities results in an unexpected current account deficit of £5 billion this year for those services.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I apologise if it is inappropriate to speak now, when I have not paid any attention to this debate previously—there is a good reason for that, which I will explain in a minute. I declare my interests as they pertain to this: there are a number, but the two main ones are that I am a vice-president of the LGA, so clearly I agree with some of what my noble friend Lord Fuller said, and I am also a non-executive director of a care company owned by another council. I could have spoken in a number of these debates, but I have chosen to speak now only because my noble friend Lord Fuller was speaking, and somebody has to put what he said in loads of words into a few short words. That is no disrespect to my noble friend, who is obviously much more eloquent than I will ever be.
I have not spoken before because I do not agree with my side on everything. I do not think it is the Ministers’ fault, or my colleagues’ fault when they were Ministers, or the coalition’s fault when they were Ministers. All the pressures facing public services have been in the system for at least 20 years. In 2006, before the 2008 crash, we had a declining budget for public services; all the political parties have fingerprints on that. I do not want to get involved in the debate about whose fault it is, why we are here and how we got this far. I really love civil servants—I was a NED in a department for a while—but it is their fault that the Government are now doing the wrong thing. The Government have created a jobs tax that will increase unemployment because it was an easy model that has been sitting on the shelf for the best part of 15 or 16 years. Other Governments resisted going down this route; the current Government have been caught on the hop and are acting against their own stated aims.
I really do not want to criticise the Government or the Civil Service, but if we are to have more money to spend on public services, which everybody agrees are underfunded, we have to get it from somewhere, so somebody is going to pay more. Hopefully, we will all make more, so we can all afford to pay more, but this will not give us more. It will end up giving us less, because people will be laid off and we will have to pay their benefits. We will get worse public services and more expensive benefits—nobody wins, but it is an easy solution to a big problem. So, while I agree that we are going to play Committee games and not move any of these amendments, at some point we will end up going through a Division Lobby and we will vote against the Government—not because we do not like them, but because we think they are being sucker-punched by people who have an easy solution that will not fix the problem.
This is a hard problem; we have to find the proper solution to it, and NI is not the way to get better public services. For those reasons, I have to agree with my friend John—my noble friend Lord Fuller—but I cannot speak as eloquently as he can.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this issue. I find myself in agreement with both my noble friends Lord Porter of Spalding and Lord Fuller, because they are both right. My noble friend Lord Fuller puts his case with great elegance and eloquence, and has experience of having led a district council and being involved with the District Councils Network. We have something in common because I was also once vice-president of the Local Government Association and had the great honour of being a Front-Bencher for Communities and Local Government in the other place.
I want to focus on a particular aspect that concerns me about the unintended consequences of these fiscal changes and their effect on local government. There are huge demographic pressures that no government can get absolutely right, because no government can deal with, for instance, the problem of unaccompanied children that faces councils such as Kent County Council; social care for the over-85s, the number of whom is going to double in the next 20 to 25 years; children’s transport services, with the number of children who are given statements for special educational needs; and, of course, pensions in local government. These are all issues that any party in government is going to have to deal with, irrespective of how well-meaning Ministers are and how hard civil servants work.
My concern stems from what has happened recently in Peterborough, where the gap between the available budget and spending is around £20 million, which, for a small unitary, is a significant amount of money. The reserve has been reduced, over just one year, from £45 million to £14 million. My worry is about what Lord Macmillan, Harold Macmillan, described in 1985 as “selling off the family silver”. The problem with such a broad-brush fiscal change as this is not that it will necessarily force many authorities into a Section 114 situation where they are, de facto, bankrupt, but that it will force them to dispose of very important long-term assets, which they will never get back.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment. Local government finance is in a parlous state, with more than 70% of funding used for adult and children’s social care, which, due to demographic pressures, is growing substantially above GDP and inflation. In some places, this is exacerbated by housing costs due to the housing shortages across the country.
The latest local government finance settlement has not helped, as the additional government funding is the worst I can recall, after taking account of national insurance, since I became chair of the Local Government Association in 2019. I agree with my noble friends’ comments on this. Yet the financial pressures on local government continue, forcing many councils to put up council tax by the maximum of 5% and, in several cases, to seek additional rises above that. National insurance rises pose a particular burden on local councils. The LGA, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fuller, estimates that the cost is around £1.7 billion, of which around £1.2 billion is indirect. The Government have committed to fund the direct costs of the national insurance rise but, as my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, that does not even cover the full direct costs.
I emphasise that figure of £1.2 billion. There has been some commentary that it needs to be absorbed by suppliers. Frankly, that is not realistic. For instance, in one of the biggest areas—social care staff and care workers—you have agencies that just are not capable of absorbing that level of cost. They will have two options: get a price rise from the council, or stand away from their contracts. We councils cannot afford that so we will inevitably be forced to pay the extra amounts of money.
For example, in Central Bedfordshire Council—where I am a councillor and therefore declare an interest—the shortfall is around £2 million for the direct costs after the financial settlement. I talked to the finance director yesterday and he estimated indirect costs of around £10 million. To put that in context, that is more than a 5% council tax rise will generate. So, even after such a rise, we will not cover the national insurance rise.
That will inevitably mean that we will have to look at cuts to our essential services, the majority of which are statutory—the classic potholes, parks, libraries, et cetera. They are all up for grabs, so to speak. That is just not fair on our residents, who are paying additional council tax and seeing cuts to their services. I support the amendment, so that the impact of the national insurance rise can be truly worked out on a council basis and then properly funded.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I realise that I am very much in danger of becoming repetitive, but this is the last grouping that we will deal with today. If I may, I always feel like cheering on the noble Lord, Lord Porter, every time I hear him speak, which may put him in jeopardy, but it is probably reflected by voices across the Committee.
The issues being raised are crucial. I will not repeat the discussion that we had last Monday and Wednesday, which covered this same area in great detail. However, the amendments put forward then, which would basically exclude adult and child social care, housing associations, charities and others from the changes in the employers’ NICs threshold, would answer very many of the problems that local authorities are going to face. While I understand that this amendment seeks an impact assessment, we go for exclusion of these various necessary services and on that, once again, we stand our ground.
I thought that there might be some mention of town and parish councils in this group, which will get no protection at all from the increases in employers’ national insurance that they will face. We put forward an amendment last week that would exclude them from this. Once again, I ask that town and parish councils not be overlooked in the process of understanding that the public sector will be protected. With the changes that the Government are mooting in going to strategic authorities, town and parish councils will be the only real local government layer left, quite frankly, where somebody within a community knows that community, speaks to the people in it and acts on their behalf. Because they are funded purely through tax rather than through some government grant, the Government have not given them the off-set for the additional costs that they will have to carry. They amount to so little—£10 million a year. The Government would not even notice it. Without that, because they have no other sources of income, they will absolutely be required to increase their taxes by between 1.5% and 3.5%.
These councils should not be overlooked. They might be very small, but they are vital. For many people in this era, they are the connection to politics in a world where there is so much cynicism over politics and people do not feel the reality of it any more. I hope very much that the Conservatives, having made such strong statements on the effect of all these changes, will consider coming into the Lobbies with us on Report.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 70. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Fuller has joined the Committee today and spoken with such passion and eloquence, and I support his proposal for an impact assessment of the costs involved with this Act on local authorities. It was also good to hear from my noble friend Lord Porter; as a former civil servant many years ago, I was amused by his comment about policies hanging around in a drawer. I particularly remember that when I used to go to the Council in Brussels; there were a lot of proposals that used to hang around for a long time.
I agree that the jobs tax is the wrong approach, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson that there are some tricky issues in parts of local government. I have to say that I have often been an admirer of local government, particularly councils, over a long career.
This week the Government confirmed £502 million of funding to help local authorities to cover the increased costs of directly employed staff due to the changes in the national insurance contributions. Ministers have also allocated £13 million separately to mayoral combined authorities, with some allocations to follow in due course. As we have heard, local authorities will need additional support in the face of the jobs tax. I welcome the fact that Ministers have brought this support forward, but we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller that that the allocation is totally inadequate. He called it a £1.226 billion headache, while my noble friend Lord Jamieson, also very experienced in this area, explained that it is just not possible to absorb these sorts of costs, for example, by reducing prices to suppliers. Services will inevitably have to be cut.
I shall highlight some examples where we believe the allocations will fall short. Hampshire County Council is facing a £10 million increase in costs due to the increase in NICs but the allocation it has received from the Government is just £7 million, leaving a £3 million shortfall, which I suspect is quite typical. My noble friend Lord Jackson talked of the likely demise of the lido in Peterborough and of libraries that are closing, although I am glad to say that, so far, we have kept our libraries open in Wiltshire. We are also hearing reports from Kensington and Chelsea and Harlow councils that they are facing a shortfall following the announcement of the allocations.
Clearly the Government’s additional allocations need to cover every penny of the increased cost to local authorities, otherwise they are going to have to cut services. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could commit to engaging with MHCLG to seek assurances about what is happening and how that could be improved.
Councils, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller, have been treated a lot worse than sectors like the police, the Civil Service and the National Health Service. This is a case in point for the argument we have been making throughout Committee where the Government have failed to produce thorough and comprehensive impact assessments. Mistakes like this can be made. The new refusal of the Treasury to provide essential information in debates like this, when such major changes are taking place, is extremely disappointing, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, in her usually trenchant way. The Minister needs to listen to the Opposition when we call for a proper assessment of the impact of this policy on our local authorities. We want to know about other sectors too, but local authorities are this particular group’s concern and we will be returning to the charge.
The truth is that the Bill is very damaging. It will have perverse effects that will reduce the expected national insurance and tax take, as we have heard from the OBR, and it will have a negative effect on jobs, prices and growth. I hope the Minister will think further in the light of these four days of debate before Report.
I should say that I have enjoyed this Committee because of the insights it has given into many sectors and their challenges. It has been an extraordinary cross-cutting debate, and I look forward to Report on 25 February after our much-needed winter break.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and for the local government expertise that has been shared with the Committee. At the Budget and the recent local government finance settlement, the Government announced £2 billion for new grant funding for local Government in 2025-26. This includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions.
The LGA figures set out by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, are an external estimate rather the Government’s, and I cannot comment on those figures. However, the Treasury is of course engaging closely with HMCLG, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked. The Government have committed £4.7 billion next year to provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance costs. This applies to those directly employed by the public sector, including local government. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, independent contractors, such as those services contracted out by local authorities, will not be supported with the costs of these changes. This is exactly the same definition as with the changes to employer national insurance rates, under the previous Government’s plans for the health and social care levy.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, so often councils and other organisations indulge in special pleading for an exceptional case here or a particular need there. This small debate on my Amendment 70 has shown the gravity of the situation that councils find themselves in. It is the cumulative impacts of this exceptionally damaging proposal which will harm the most vulnerable and those in greatest need. The debate has also shone a light on the efficiencies that councils have taken in aggregate since 2010. Over £24 billion-worth of annual savings have been made by councils, if one takes into account inflation in that period. It has allowed them to keep the wheels on the wagon while suffering a 22.2% reduction in core spending power.
However, there comes a moment when you cannot keep trimming the fat—there is no more fat to trim. This £1.227 billion additional burden on council-tax payers, who are paying their council tax out of their own taxed income, is a real number. I do not dismiss it, as the Minister suggests when he says that it is just an external number and that the Government do not believe anything that does not come out of the Treasury. We heard that argument on the agricultural property relief, for example. “Just trust us on this” is not something that we want to do.
We cannot keep hollowing out local government. I proposed a remedy. Through the Section 34 mechanism, this assessment can and should be made. We can then have a debate, not just for this year but in those following the comprehensive spending review, on what the additional burdens will be. We need to get down to real numbers. I mention Harlow, simply because my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe did so. Harlow’s increase in national insurance contributions this year on a £10 million or £11 million budget is over £1 million—and the Government have just given them £198,000. That is the quantum of the shortfall. Not only has that cost been made but their core spending grant has been cut by 21%.
I will not say much more, but we have placed a marker on this point. I am disappointed that we have not answers to all the points. Not having an answer to those questions which I and my noble friends asked invites representations on Report. I expect my noble friends and I will return at that point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.