National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

Perhaps I might comment on the remarks of the noble Lord opposite just now. I have for 25 years had the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker—I forget what the earlier term was—and I can assure him that it is quite clear that Divisions in Grand Committee are not permitted.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I do not like to disagree with the Minister, but I cannot help thinking that describing this Bill as a technical Bill is rather far-fetched. If you compare the Bills that we have seen in Grand Committee, such as the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which was a very large and technical Bill, or indeed the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which went through last time round, you see that these are indeed very technical Bills—of a short and long nature. But this Bill is one of the tiniest Bills I have seen. It is very short. It proposes two simple measures. One is to lower the threshold at which employers will pay national insurance, the consequences of which were pointed out on Monday. The second is to raise the percentage of national insurance paid by employers on every salary, notwithstanding the raising of a certain employment allowance. I therefore cannot help but think that this is a very simple proposition for this country and a very serious one, and to describe it as a technical Bill is a slight exaggeration—perhaps the noble Lord will agree.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This Bill is significant and should of course be subject to thorough scrutiny by your Lordships’ House. As I said, the Government believe that the Ground Committee provides the best forum for that scrutiny. It was notable in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that she sought to revisit all the arguments that were debated thoroughly during Second Reading of the Bill on Monday and did not address a single question of precedent.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition of the Bill. I declare a special interest, having worked on and published a number of independent analyses of the fiscal, monetary and regulatory problems of the UK economy as director of Politeia, the think tank at which I am now research director.

No one with the public finances at heart can fail to support a measure that strengthens transparency and a rules-based approach to the UK’s public finances. I am a devotee of fiscal stability and the need for rules, written or, as in previous times, understood. As the German economist Ludger Schuknecht has explained, many serious problems arise not because of bad rules, but because of the failure to implement the rules by using tools such as medium-term budgetary frameworks, spending reviews, financial risk analysis and independent fiscal councils to help achieve these aims.

But are the Bill and the structures—including the OBR, which it relies on—the way to ensure sustainable public finances and tighter fiscal discipline? I am unsure, and I have the following questions. First, is the Bill requiring an OBR assessment for financially significant measures or empowering the OBR to offer such an analysis, should it deem a measure such, enough to control unsustainable public spending and public debt? Is there any obligation on the Government to change their spending or debt policy if an OBR analysis predicts potentially dire consequences for the economy? If not, there is no fiscal lock, contrary to the Government’s suggestion, but simply fiscal advice. If so, that raises constitutional questions about unelected bodies and the power they exercise.

Secondly, the Government want to allow a higher ceiling for debt as a proportion of GDP by the fifth year of the cycle, from 1% to 1.2% of GDP, made public in advance of the Budget. Should we expect a further relaxation of the three previous rules for fiscal discipline and, if so, which will be relaxed, which will be changed and which will become less transparent? Will further changes be assessed by those who, like me, are sceptical of lax fiscal discipline?

Thirdly, no single forecasting institution can, or should be expected to, take the burden of advising a Government on tax and spending alone. We have heard today of some of the problems with the OBR which it has the modesty to recognise. Will the Government be open and invite other forecasters and assessments, equally independent of the Treasury and the OBR, to be sure to have other views?

Fourthly, what public spending will count as fiscally significant? I know the 1% of GDP measure has been provided, but here are two sorts of public spending that may be open-ended and not fall within the threshold, although they will eventually. The first is public sector pay rises. Rises of 5% or 6% for the 3.5 million public sector workers have been announced, adding to the potential for pay inflation, with other rises reported to be in the offing, including 22% mooted for doctors. Will the Minister agree that such pay rises should prompt an OBR report, particularly if they will likely continue to increase and reach the high threshold?

The second is the costs of immigration. According to Home Office figures, quite apart from legal migration—which is nearer to 1 million this year, net migration being lower—illegal migration via channel crossings amounted to 9,000 illegal immigrants crossing to the UK in July, August and the first week of September. Since no scheme in place is likely to deter these crossings, will the Minister confirm whether the additional management, administrative and legal costs—these have been itemised by previous Governments—for processing individual cases and providing public services, including housing and subsistence, will be averaged in an annual figure and considered as significant in order for an assessment by the OBR?