National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Blackwell (Con)]

In that case, I will address that amendment when we come to it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for tabling these amendments and others who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lord Randall, who supported the amendments highlighting the damage to smaller businesses. I very much share his view.

This has been an interesting discussion and it has brought out how unjust the proposals in the Budget for national insurance were. The amendment rightly draws attention to the problems created across the health sector, all of which we will discuss again in detail on other groups. “Stark” was the rather good word used by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. As we heard at Second Reading, there are appalling consequences for those dealing with some of the most tragic services, including hospices and the transport of those with special educational needs. There will also be an immense strain on care homes, GPs, dentists and pharmacies—mostly small operations employing a number of part-time and low-paid staff. That will seriously impact on the health of the NHS.

What is so unfair is that the public sector is being compensated for the extra costs. That is in contrast to those carrying out public good in the private sector, which, incidentally, we know is more productive. For example, I have been amazed by the industry of family-run pharmacies, which helped so much during Covid and are asked to do more and more year by year. They are having to deal with the treble whammy of NICs, the national minimum wage rises—especially for the young—and the prospect of the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s proposals for new employment legislation.

As I highlighted at Second Reading, many in the health sector say that they will be forced to reduce services and limit headcount. For example, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about the increased cost of social care faced by the independent care providers—I think he talked about £900 million; I had a figure of £940 million—which simply dwarfs the £600 million support rightly included in the Budget to help the sector. If the Government recognise that this tax is not sustainable for the public sector, why are they unable to apply that same logic to sectors that provide public services? These are not big businesses. They provide a critical service for the people and, if they are unable to do so, that will add to the pressure on the NHS. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, gave a good example of the Cyrenians in Scotland and my noble friend Lord Forsyth rightly mentioned hospices, as I think everybody will do throughout this Committee.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before my noble friend leaves this figure of £940 million for social care, something like one in seven of the beds in the NHS are occupied by people who are well and who could be discharged. If we are going to add a burden to the social care sector, that £940 million does not take account of the cost to the NHS of those beds being occupied by people who would otherwise be able to be in their own homes, not just saving the taxpayer money but also hugely improving their quality of life. So the £940 million —or the £900 million, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—is a gross underestimate of the real costs that are being imposed by this policy, is it not?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. It is a question of the dynamics. I know, having once been a Treasury Minister, that dynamics always worry it. But the fact of the matter is that, if we can get things done and get people out of hospital quicker, as my noble friend suggests, that would make a real difference.

I feel that the proposals that we are faced with for hard-working businesspeople and for social enterprises are a huge slap in the face. They are being discussed on a day when unemployment is rising and job opportunities are falling. I believe that that reflects the impact of the £23.8 billion hit on employers’ national insurance. It is a veritable jobs tax and the gloom that the Government have admitted for the first six months of their tenure has not helped. That is why my noble friend Lord Forsyth was right to regret that we were debating this not on the Floor of the House but in Grand Committee. I hope that none the less we will attempt to give the Bill proper scrutiny here, because if we do not, that would be a big failing.

In that respect, one of the things that annoys me most is the lack of a proper impact assessment. We have a very inadequate impact note, which was published on 13 November. That gives a run of the yield to the Exchequer year by year but does not break it down into the three categories: the costs of the increase to 15%, the lowering of the threshold, which is extremely regressive, and the welcome benefit from the rise in the employment allowance—and indeed anything else included in the figure of £23.8 billion, which was by far the biggest change in the Budget and which is why so many people are here today worrying about the Bill.

There is also an unexpected dynamic effect highlighted by the OBR, which means that, following the reduction in wages, profits and employment, this tax will raise over £5 billion less than the Treasury forecast, raising £18.3 billion in 2025-26 and nearly £10 billion less than the forecast in 2026-27. So there is a great deal of pain for wealth creators and effective employers, but not a lot of gain.

I cannot see how we can scrutinise the Bill without proper impact information, and I look forward to a proper discussion during the debate on Amendment 13. However, I think the Committee would also like to have authoritative, disaggregated figures on the impact on the health and care sectors under discussion today. That is why I am raising this now, and I hope the Minister will consider what he can do to assist the Committee so that we can have proper understanding and proper scrutiny. We want to do the right thing here.

It is against that sombre background that I shall speak to my Amendments 38 and 42, which have been grouped with this amendment. They seek to increase the employment allowance in the primary care sector. My purpose is to probe the Government’s openness to helping the sector a bit more through an increase. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the facts. The BMA has said that, as public authorities, they are unable to access support via the increased allowance and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made a similar point in relation to dentists. The Committee needs to know whether that is true.

Mine is a probing amendment and the first of several relating to Clause 3. To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, as someone who has tried to reform taxes in the past, originally with the help of my noble friend Lord Heseltine as part of the deregulation initiative, it is very difficult to get simplification of the tax system. That is one reason why I have tabled an amendment relating to the employment allowance, because it comes at the matter in a different way.

Primary care is vital to the Government’s plans to improve the NHS. My fear is that the NICs changes, especially the lowering of the threshold and with part-time working so common in primary care, will lead to further problems in GP surgeries, increasing chronic conditions and waiting times for appointments across the NHS, and having the perverse effect that I think we will come back to as this Committee progresses.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on this first group of amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so far. It is also a pleasure to see so many noble Lords in the Grand Committee. I know that some noble Lords are unhappy about being here, but the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, in particular, and I know what it feels like to be in this Grand Committee on our own, so it is, at least, I have to say, nice to be popular.

Before I address each of the amendments in this group, I shall very briefly set out at the outset the context in which the Budget decisions contained in the Bill were taken. I would like to do so since this context is why we are here today and underpins the debates that we will have, not just on this group of amendments, but on all further groups. As noble Lords will know, the Government inherited three distinct challenges: the need to repair the public finances; the need to rebuild public services; and the need to protect working people.

The most pressing of these challenges was the need to repair the £22 billion black hole in the public finances as a result of a series of commitments made by the previous Government which they did not fund. The previous Government also made no provision for costs that they knew would materialise, including £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal and £1.8 billion to compensate victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal. These pressures have to be funded, and it falls to this Government to do so.

Noble Lords will also know that the country inherited acute problems in public services, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in Portakabins as school roofs crumbled around them and rivers filled with polluted waste. Yet since 2021, there had been no spending review and no detailed plans for departmental spending were set out for beyond this year. Working people had also lived through a cost-of-living crisis, with inflation peaking at 11.1% and remaining above target for 33 consecutive months. Combined with the previous Government’s decision to freeze income tax thresholds—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I asked a question which, in relation to dentists, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. It was about the definition of “public authorities” and how that affects payment of the employment allowance. I raised it at Second Reading as well. It would be helpful to have a judgment on that point.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The definition is set as it was previously. We have no intention of changing that definition.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

To be clear, that means these bodies will not have access to the employment allowance if they are public authorities. It would be helpful to know what the costings of that look like. I know that the Minister does not want to make any changes, but we are trying to understand what the numbers are here and in some minor areas, such as hospices. The Minister says that hospices will have extra money, but they will also have to pay a lot extra in national insurance. We are trying to understand all that to give him helpful feedback on the Bill; obviously, we are as keen as he is for it to succeed.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I would be very happy to look into the specific point made by the noble Baroness. I will feed back in my responses on a subsequent group.

--- Later in debate ---

At present, as I understand it, there is still an exemption on NI contributions for veterans in their first job after they have left the Armed Forces. If I am indeed correct in that, can the Minister explain to the Committee how that is going to be dealt with in the current changes to the legislation? Will that simply be abolished by this general increase in national insurance contributions? In short, I should like at least to do what I have done, which is to raise the importance of supporting veterans back into employment. An attack on jobs through an increase in national insurance contributions is a general problem, but it is a particular problem for getting veterans back into employment. Specifically, is the NI contribution exemption for the first year still going to be in place under the Government’s new legislation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I did not say I wanted the Bill to go through. I agree that that it is a jobs tax, as the noble Baroness said. What I accept is that the Government have a large majority in the other House, and what I am trying to do in this House is to have a proper discussion on the Bill with a view, perhaps, to amending it and persuading the Government that they have made some mistakes and that we can improve the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The noble Baroness is trying to encourage the Liberal Democrats to be in agreement with the Conservatives, rather as her noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested at one point that he was in favour of the amendment from my noble friend Lord Scriven. We need to be a little bit careful not to agree with each other too often. But she is absolutely right. The Government have a large majority in the other place and it is not the business of this House to go against the Salisbury/Addison convention. However, I do not remember this being a manifesto commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which seek to exempt veteran salaries from the employer national insurance changes. These amendments would create a different employer national insurance rate and threshold set at the current levels for salaries of veterans. The Government of course recognise the huge contributions made by the UK Armed Forces and veterans in this country, and I completely understand the intention behind these amendments.

As some noble Lords have mentioned, there is already an employer national insurance relief available for the earnings of veterans, meaning that employers are not required to pay any national insurance contributions up to £50,270 for the first year of civilian employment. At the Budget, the Government decided to extend the national insurance contributions relief for employers who hire veterans to support veterans in their first year of civilian employment for a further year. Despite the challenging fiscal inheritance this Government face, this means we are maintaining this relief and it is not changing as a result of this Bill.

Further to this, we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities either gain or see no change next year. Businesses and charities will still be able to claim employer national insurance reliefs, including those for under-21s and under-25 apprentices, where eligible.

On veterans more widely, this Government have taken action to demonstrate our commitment to renew this nation’s contract with those who have served. We have awarded £3.7 million in veterans housing grants, veterans will be exempt from the local connection test for social housing in England and veteran cards are now accepted ID for elections. We are progressing veterans support programmes at pace, including a centralised referral pathway designed to support veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, an NHS mental health specialist service designed to help veterans and their families in England and an NHS physical health specialist service designed to help veterans and their families in England.

Before I sit down, I shall also address the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about dentists, which I was unable to answer during the debate on the previous group. As I said, the criteria have not changed, including the exclusion of those doing 50% of their work in the public sector. The eligibility is down to individual businesses, and the proportion of their work in the public sector may vary year to year. All charities can claim, including hospices.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My point was in relation to the points made by the BMA and the dentists. There are two separate points. It is not in this group, but it might be as well to have a discussion on this so that we can be clear about this and on the impact on these important areas for the future of health in the NHS.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify something? I understood that the national insurance contributions relief for veterans had been extended for one year and that this Bill was not going to affect veterans. Surely at some point it cuts out. Is that correct, so that this would be valid only up to 2026?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I will try to be extremely brief because no doubt I will be interrupted again. The point I was making was that if you cut tax in one area, you are going to have to raise it somewhere else. That is always problematic.

There are two other reasons why I have some reservations about this amendment. First, it is often thought—the Financial Secretary will remember this because we worked together on measures in the early 2000s—that part-time workers are poor. However, if you look at the poverty statistics, many part-time workers live in quite affluent households. My point is that as a measure to target people on low income, this is a very blunt instrument. It is far better to target them through tax credits, or universal credit as it is now called.

My final points relates to having worked on national insurance over three decades or more and is about the danger of creating steps in the system. I remember large numbers of workers bunching below the lower earnings limit, which was totally understandable as it was in their interest and their employer’s interest. By creating steps in the system, you discourage people from moving up the earnings ladder. In the short term, I could understand that cutting national insurance for the self-employed would genuinely incentivise the employment of part-time workers, but once in place, over time the existence of the step would trap many workers in this part-time zone because their employers would not want them to cross the step that resulted in higher national insurance. I warn against targeted measures such as this as they tend to cause difficulty and disappointment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is not in his place and associate myself with the request for some information about Scotland.

The amendments address a matter of real importance, which is the impact of the measures on part-time and seasonal workers, SMEs, hospitality and tourism. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right about the importance of part-time working in tourism, pubs, restaurants and events. That sector is sometimes neglected in public policy-making, but it is vital to growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, on growth, and indeed on the hospitality industry, it is particularly good to have the practical experience of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. I agree with him that it would be helpful to understand today’s employment decline a little better in the Committee.

According to the ONS, there are 8.4 million people working part-time in the UK, which is approximately one-quarter of the workforce. They work in large and small firms and include many young people, students and carers, as well as disproportionate numbers in hospitality, tourism and retail. I know from my days at Tesco how important part-time workers are to big employers as well as small employers, and, in particular, to 24/7 businesses—retail is a 24/7 business. That includes a lot of employment of elderly people. Also, as was said, part-time workers are not only the lowly paid—I had several part-time directors working for me—and good employers offer proper training to their part-time teams. It is an extremely important part of the economy.

While the rise in the national insurance rate to 15% will no doubt hit part-time workers, it is the huge reduction of the threshold to £5,000 from £9,100 that will have the most detrimental consequences for those who work part-time. It is yet another blow to the sector, alongside the increase in the minimum wage that comes into force in April.

As a result, a company that employs a part-time worker over the age of 21 who works just eight hours a week on the minimum wage—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said it was down from 14 hours a week —will be hit with this jobs tax for the first time, and the hospitality sector will be disproportionately affected. I think Kate Nicholls used the word “eye-watering”. The industry has warned that the measures announced in the Bill will cost it £1 billion overall. My noble friend Lord Ahmad quoted that figure as well. He is right about the adverse consequences of this and the need for consultation on such changes. How can you adjust your business model and be ready if you do not know what is coming?

It is really difficult for these companies. For the first time, they will have to pay tax on the wages of thousands of part-time hospitality workers. UKHospitality has estimated that a company employing a part-time worker doing 15 hours a week will see a 73% increase in its national insurance bill. It goes without saying that business will have to make tough decisions, as employing part-time workers is soon to become much more expensive. The trouble is that part-time work provides a flexible form of employment for so many—I have mentioned students and carers, but parents are also affected. It can be very useful in juggling what families do. These are people who rely on the flexibility of part-time contracts and might not otherwise be able to work at all.

Can the Minister tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of the effect of the changes enabled by the Bill on part-time workers? Perhaps he could also comment on the levels of employment within the hospitality sector and how he sees that panning out. How do the Government intend to support industries that will be most impacted by these changes to national insurance contributions? How can he give them hope and how can we be sure that they continue to play their part in growth? It is difficult and we need to try to find some comfort.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking after the Tory Front Bench, but I thought the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was continuing after the voting break.

I will speak briefly in favour of Amendments 58 and 59. In doing that, perhaps I should declare an interest. I was on the board of the Fawcett Society in 2010 when it brought a judicial review against the emergency Budget of that year for its failure to honour its legal duty under the Equality Act to do with gender impact assessment. In that case, although Fawcett lost the overall case on legal grounds, it was said that the gender impact assessment requirements applied to the Budget and should have been carried out on a couple of aspects of that Budget.

With that in mind, I draw attention to the final page of the policy paper of 13 November, which I think we are regarding as an impact assessment. Under the heading “Equalities Impacts”, in this five-page document that my sub-editor’s eye tells me is in 16-point, it states:

“Secondary Class 1 NICs are levied on employers rather than individuals. There are therefore no direct equalities impacts”.


I would like to question the Minister on how it can be claimed that there are no equalities impacts. Some figures have already been raised, but I point out that 74% of part-time workers are female, 57% of involuntary part-time workers are female, 6 million women are working part time and 10 million women are working full time. According to the Resolution Foundation’s analysis of ONS data, 63% of UK workers under the £9,100 threshold are female. We are seeing national insurance charges increasing the cost of employment by nearly £700 a year for someone working 15 hours a week on the minimum wage. An additional 600,000 women workers are being brought within scope of national insurance. As others have said, on the minimum wage you need to work fewer than eight hours a week to stay below the new threshold.

Analysis of this has suggested that women workers are particularly affected by this change. Some of them may want to raise their hours, so this might turn out positive. Some of them may have caring responsibilities that mean that they cannot lift their hours and may then have to leave employment because they are being offered more or nothing. It is also worth pointing out that the Women’s Budget Group has highlighted how the overall impacts of the national insurance changes are likely significantly to increase childcare costs. That is of immediate relevance to working women with direct childcare responsibilities, but, as the Women’s Budget Group pointed out, there are also issues around grandparents, very likely grandmothers, who may find themselves being pushed, and feeling obligated, to leave employment so that they can take up childcare responsibilities. I do not think that that equalities impact can be justified and would appreciate the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, while no impact assessment is perfect, I think it is very difficult to call this note of 13 November detailed. The only numbers it gives are the global numbers, the £23.7 billion et cetera, and the run, and there are a few textual comments about equalities and things. What it does not do is even break down the costings into the different areas where different measures are being taken. It is not a detailed assessment; it is described, rightly, as an impact note. We will return to this, because we think that transparency and understanding the impact of policies is really helpful, including to His Majesty’s Government.