National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 18, 21 and 25 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I am particularly pleased to see my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, who brings his unique knowledge of the difficulties that businesses are facing, especially in the retail sector. He runs one of Britain’s most admired companies—and has done so for 22 years, he tells us. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Leigh, and others, said about him and his business.

As always, my noble friend Lady Noakes stated the arguments very clearly and persuasively. My noble friend Lord Wolfson used a new phrase, for this Committee: he talked about a poll tax, rather than the “jobs tax” term that we have used before—that is always a warning. He said that the changes in national insurance could affect as many as 20 million jobs, which explains to some extent the huge reaction there has been to this measure right across business and, indeed, from many in work.

As he said, for relatively little cost, we could reduce the social and economic impacts of the changes. His spirit was very constructive. He acknowledged the productivity improvement that is needed, some of which is already in the pipeline, as he said, but also the difficulty of what I would call the shock tactic of the double whammy of the April changes. My noble friends Lord Swire and Lord Leigh gave us first-hand evidence of the loss of jobs which is taking place already, and which we have talked about before. My noble friend Lady Fraser evidenced the impact of that double whammy and brought out the point about the loss of skills: if people lose their jobs, we lose the skills in the industry. We had further estimates from my noble friend Lord Leigh, to add to those we had last week from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which merit attention.

The amendment seeks to allow for a more gradual transition in the reduction of the secondary threshold. That would allow businesses time to adjust to the increase of a substantial new tax burden. It aims to be a small but important step in alleviating some of the burden on employers. The Government have to accept that they have placed considerable strain on business with their fiscal policies, and a phased introduction would provide a more manageable path forward.

Businesses are the backbone of the economy: they provide jobs, drive innovation and contribute to the prosperity of our communities right across the country. However, given the current pressures they are under, it is critical that we do not introduce changes that exacerbate their struggles. The sudden and sharp reduction in the secondary threshold will represent a huge burden, particularly for smaller employers, as we discussed last time, and for those grappling with rising costs and reduced cash flow. A gradual approach would ensure that the reduction was not a sudden shock to businesses and allow them to adjust their payroll and budgeting systems. It would be more predictable and manageable, and employers could plan and absorb the changes over time.

The IFS has found that the lowest salaries will be affected the most, with the lowest earners facing a larger than 4.5% increase in contribution, compared with less than 1.5% for the highest earners. It is partly because of the perverse effects and the adjustment issues that we are looking at today that the IFS has suggested that the Budget measure will—quite quickly—raise only £16 billion a year. My noble friend Lord Leigh has also modelled the impact of a 3% jobs cut, which he estimates would wipe out the revenue from the proposed changes.

We need to think again. My noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Wolfson talked about the 10% to 13% increases coming in April, if you take NICs and the national minimum wage together; some delay or a reduction in the threshold would avoid the disaster, particularly on the high street, that I am so worried about.

I was talking to an excellent member of staff in the closing shop in Salisbury which I mentioned last week. She still does not have a job to go to. That has not been my experience of retail closures in the past; usually, the best employees are quickly snapped up by the competition. We have a bit of a problem here, and I would like to work with the Government to see whether anything can be done to alleviate the difficulties.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

28: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out “2025-26” and insert “beginning after the tax year in which an impact assessment is published assessing the impact of the provisions in this section on early years provision.”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for early years provision.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will speak also to my Amendment 40; both concern early years provision. I am afraid that this measure is another example of not protecting working people. The Budget will have a disastrous impact on the early years sector, and we need to consider this fully.

My Amendment 28 asks the Government to produce an appropriate impact assessment on the effect of this jobs tax on the early years sector. There have been calls from across the sector for the Government to acknowledge the impact this measure will have. The Early Years Alliance has estimated that this harsh tax will cost each nursery an additional £18,600 per year. Yet, despite these calls, the Government have not acknowledged the especially harsh impact this tax will have on the early years sector.

The chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association has told us that, on average, 75% of a nursery’s expenditure is spent on staffing costs, and that, as a result of this tax raid, nurseries will have to find an additional 11% on top of the usual amount they spend on staff. Her view was that, following this Budget, the only realistic options facing nurseries are to pass the extra burden on to parents and/or to reduce the number of places they offer, in order to prevent them going out of business. Although I welcome the additional funding for early years introduced in the Budget, this sector is already under financial pressure, and this additional burden on a sector that provides such an integral service seems incredibly short-sighted.

In December, the Government published their funding rates for 2025-26, but they failed to include an uplift for this damaging tax, which they themselves are introducing. My Amendment 40 seeks to reduce the impact on early years by increasing the employment allowance in this labour-intensive sector. This is often made up of part-time workers whose employers are hit worst by the reduction in the threshold for NICs, as we just heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson. I would like to understand the cost to the Exchequer. The Minister helpfully gave us a figure for the overall cost of the increase in the employment allowance last time. Can he give an estimate of how much will go to early years providers, so that we can understand the impact of doubling it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks to prevent commencement of this Bill until an impact assessment is published for the early years sector.

Delaying commencement of the Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have stated previously in Committee, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note, including impacts on the Exchequer, the economy, individuals, households and families, equalities and businesses, including civil society organisations, with details on monitoring and evaluation.

Further, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.

Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. This would introduce new pressures which would have to be met by either more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I also note that creating new thresholds or rates based on what sector a business is in would introduce distortion and additional complexity into the tax system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked for some specific figures. The figures are not broken down in the way that she asks for.

Early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible. That is why, in our manifesto, the Government committed to delivering the expansion of government-funded childcare for working parents and to opening 3,000 new or expanded nurseries through upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector.

Despite the very challenging fiscal circumstances the Government inherited, at the Budget the Chancellor announced significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver government-funded childcare places. This means that total funding will rise to more than £8 billion in 2025-26.

In light of these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I hope that in the light of what has been said today and on previous days, the Government will look at the impact of these NICs changes on our early years sector.

When we were in government, we took steps to support the early years sector, and we know that the national insurance increase is going to be a significant setback. My noble friend Lady Lawlor talked about the numbers of providers spread across the country, which play a huge part in the induction to the world of education and in helping young people to get the right kind of start in life. The very least the Government can do is to look at the impact note again and produce an assessment of the impact of the policy on the early years sector in particular, not just the overall economic impact. We have heard from the Minister on several occasions that they have produced a note, but it is a macroeconomic—an overall—note, while what we have here are very big changes in the economy affecting individual sectors, some of them very badly. There does not seem to be any readiness to look at the impact in those sectors and to find solutions, whether through national insurance changes or some other way. I suggested the employment allowance as another route.

The noble Lord will also recall that when in government we took steps to increase the supply of early years provision by expanding the childminding sector and encouraging the establishment of new nurseries alongside our expansion of the 30-hours free childcare policy. Without an assessment of the impact of these changes, how can the Government be sure that they will be able to deliver on the ambitious plans that the Minister set out to expand free childcare hours for hard-working families? I think there is a measure of agreement on objectives, but we need to find a way to get there.

These are important questions, and Ministers need to answer them before we get to Report. It is intolerable that we are pressing ahead with a jobs tax without a full assessment of the policy. We have had some macro figures, now broken down into three chunks, but it is very difficult for us to know what the individual effect is on different sectors. This is a serious matter. Working families across the country are very concerned. My worry is that the noise of concerns on something such as early years will increase as April comes and early years providers discover just what sort of hole they are in, but in the interests of time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, listening to noble Lords present the case for Amendment 29, I agreed with every single word that was said. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, said that an exemption was required. Amendment 29 does not ask for that exemption; it asks for an assessment to be done, and therefore it does not mean that an exemption would come, which is why, on day one in Committee, we on these Benches tabled an amendment to say that an exemption for hospices should apply. If we bring that back on Report, I hope that the noble Baroness will support us as we hold our ground.

I want to talk briefly to the other amendment in this group: Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding the increase in the employer allowance to £20,000 for hospices. Just as a matter of fact, the average number of staff per hospice is 81 full-time equivalent employees, and the average salary is £23,626. Therefore, the average total salary bill for a hospice is £1.863 million, so a £20,000 employment allowance will be absolutely useless because hospitals will still be clobbered by the national insurance contribution increase. That is why we put them down for an exemption, and we hold our ground on that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 41. I support Amendment 29 in the name of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, who gave an extremely moving speech. She has made such a huge contribution to the charitable sector, as a supporter and a fundraiser. We must listen to her and the evidence that she has gathered in her work in the run-up to this discussion, which shows how important it is to find a way to match the compensation that NHS bodies are getting under the arrangements made for increasing national insurance and reducing the threshold.

That is the purpose of our series of amendments, some of which are probing, some of which we will pursue, because this is an important sector. Hospices are an essential part of our healthcare system, and the Bill will leave many unable to provide the services that they are currently offering. I was glad to have the support of my noble friend Lady Sater for both amendments, and that my noble friend Lord Swire was able to mention the fundraising for hospices which many have taken part in across this House. Indeed, hospices were one of my favourite charities of the year at Tesco, and one of the most moving with staff. We were talking about up to 300,000 people who were engaged in raising money for hospices. That taught us a lot about the difficulties and the wondrous jobs that they do.

My Amendment 41 seeks to increase the employment allowance for hospices, which would ease some of the financial pressures that they are facing at the hands of this Government. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, intervened, and it was helpful, to say that an exemption would cost—£1.83 million or was it billion?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I was pointing out that the average salary bill of a hospice is £1.8 million.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is the average salary bill, so the noble Lord is right that an increase in the employment allowance would not absorb all the extra costs.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I think the term “rounding error” might apply.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Obviously, for smaller bodies, the employment allowance is, as the Minister has said on several occasions, helpful because it alleviates the cost of the changes. Therefore, looking at the employment allowance is another way of coming at the issue, which is one of the reasons why we have put it forward for discussion.

Despite the fact that many hospices provide functions that would otherwise need to be provided by the NHS or social care, the Government have failed to recognise their importance and are instead taxing the hospices that the country relies on. Although hospices do not charge for their services, they receive only one-third of their funding from the Government and rely on charitable donations for the remainder of their income. This will place unnecessary and costly additional pressures on their finances at a time when demand for hospice care is growing. The Government seem to be unaware of the great help hospices provide and the fact that they reduce pressure on the NHS by providing services in a more efficient and effective way. There is a saving there to offset any cost.

While I am aware that the Minister claims that the already published impact note is enough, I have not heard another noble Lord agree with that. Although I am sure he will respond in a similar manner, the current note is simply not sufficient and does not include any impact assessment on the very businesses it is being imposed on. That is very concerning for hospices which do so much work to support the NHS and could well be bankrupted by this Government’s decision to introduce the jobs charge. The charity for children’s hospices, Together for Short Lives, has estimated that this tax rate will cost an additional £133,966 for every children’s hospice. That is an extraordinarily high number for a sector that is not profit-orientated, and I am concerned about that impact. Although I welcome the £100 million in funding that the Government have announced for hospice improvements, that money will not help with the staffing costs that these hospices will now face.

As my noble friend Lady Monckton said, hospices are life affirming and give wide support beyond the patients in the hospices to the families in their grief. They are a vital part of the palliative care system, as I hope the Minister will agree. I think that the Government will be blamed if hospices go into a downward spiral as a result of these extra costs in April. They should look again at some way of helping them, whether it is an exemption, a delay, a change to the employment allowance or some form of compensation. It is an important matter that we should address in this Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

I very much hope that the Committee will take seriously the measures that we put forward last week that would not just keep the current status quo but halve employer NICs for part-time workers. I think it is time for that kind of focus and commitment to be given both to that workforce and to the companies that focus on employing that workforce.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 51 and I support Amendment 30 in the name of my noble friend Lady Monckton, presented by my noble friend Lord Altrincham, who started by drawing attention to the very substantial number of people we are talking about in retail—hundreds of thousands of people—and the problems they are facing. As my noble friend Lady Lawlor said, jobs are being cut at the fastest rate since the financial crisis. This is a grim situation.

My Amendment 51 probes whether the Government would be willing to increase the employment allowance from £10,500 to £20,000 to offer support to the smallest businesses in the retail sector at a modest cost to the Exchequer. As my noble friend Lord Altrincham noted, our retail sector is invaluable in terms of the value it creates for our economy. In 2023, retail accounted for 4.7% of the UK’s total economic output, worth more than £110 billion. Much of this value added was in small shops, from barbers and hairdressers to farm shops. For every £1 spent in 2024, 30p was spent in food shops and 11p in clothing shops. Retail accounts for at least 50% of spending in Britain, but despite that, this Government—unlike the previous Labour Government, I have to say—appear not to understand the value that this sector provides to our economy and the jobs that it provides, particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, for part-time workers on low pay.

There have been warnings from a range of sources about the devastating impact of this tax raid on workers, who will face fewer pay rises or fewer working hours, and on businesses, which will be forced to raise prices in order to maintain their business. The British Chambers of Commerce warned that more than half of firms intended to raise prices in response to these tax hikes, and we have had a detailed analysis from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, a non-food retailer. He acknowledged that price rises or job losses in the food sector and food stores might be worse because of the lower margins in that part of the industry. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, referenced the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. It is good to see him back. He also tabled an amendment in a previous sitting which I very much supported.

There is further evidence that the Government have to think again, and there is an array of ways of doing so. I hope that, before Report, the Government will sit down, think about the devastating effects of these changes and consider whether there are ways, small or large, of alleviating their impact on many sectors of the economy and of social enterprise, which we will come on to discuss again.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to prevent commencement of the Bill until an impact assessment is published for the retail sector. Delaying commencement of the Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance.

As I have said previously, an impact assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.

Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to increase the employment allowance for those employed in the retail sectors. The Government are taking action as part of the Bill to protect the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all, and more than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package. This means that employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance.

The Budget also set out further steps that the Government are taking to strengthen small businesses’ ability to invest and grow, including in the retail sector. This includes freezing the small business multiplier, permanently reducing business tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, and publishing the Corporate Tax Roadmap to provide stability and certainty within the tax system for businesses across the economy.

Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors would add additional complexity to the tax system and, by adding further spending pressures, would require higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to briefly support Amendments 31 and 49 in relation to the hospitality sector. As we have already learned in the two previous days of Committee, there is great resistance to having the full impact assessments we are calling for, specifically in relation to these national insurance contribution increases. Perhaps that is not surprising when you look at the impact on the hospitality sector.

I will simply share one anecdote on the experience of one independent publican, who is employing 20 part-time workers. They typically work 20 hours of shifts at £15 per hour, therefore earning £300 per week on average. This publican’s bill for national insurance contributions will increase by 73%. As we know, the real problem here is dropping the threshold so severely as to create not just a punishing but an excessively regressive tax, hitting hospitality and SMEs at the margin during their delicate stages of growth or survival.

In this case, how is the publican going to respond? These are his choices: reduce the headcount; reduce the number of hours worked by the part-time workers; reduce the number of hours that his pub can remain open; and, where possible, increase prices. All of those are very damaging to the Government’s No.1 economic mission of growth, and potentially damaging for inflation, but particularly damaging to jobs and part-time workers who rely on those jobs. Typically, we are talking about the young and the old. I again support others in saying that this is a reckless act. To push these measures through without conducting a proper assessment strikes me as economically ruinous.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 49, and I support Amendment 31 in the name of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest. The fact is that, as we have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, we need an impact assessment here as well so that we can assess where to make changes and what impact this jobs tax is having.

My Amendment 49, along with others that I have tabled, would increase the employment allowance from £10,500 to £20,000. This sector, which is so important to our day-to-day life and to our tourist industry, is full of part-time workers and the lowest paid will suffer a tsunami from the NICs changes. We need to find a way of alleviating the pain, and my amendment is one such proposal.

It is a particular pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, to the Committee and to hear her evidence of the impact on the arts. She is right that the creative industries and hospitality are integrally linked, but I was equally concerned to hear about the impact on museums, theatres and other aspects of the creative arts. She is also right that, on this evidence, the Government are no friend of the arts; that should be of concern to the Committee.

My noble friend Lady Monckton was right to talk of the spiral of price increases, the diversionary pressure on management, the impact on capital investment and the effect on jobs, especially the lowest level jobs. They are particularly hit by the double whammy, as I have said already today, of the changes in NICs and the national minimum wage, which will particularly bite younger people. For good reasons, the national minimum wage for younger people has been increased, but that is making a particular difficulty in terms of hiring them, which I fear we shall see in the results in the coming months.

I have further evidence about hospitality, which I think some local papers may be interested in, so I will run through it because it is important. There have been calls from across the sector about how damaging the tax will be. Restaurateur Tom Kerridge, despite backing Labour at the election, has expressed concern that this tax raid will have “a catastrophic effect”. He said that it would cost,

“£850 extra per member of staff per year”

and have a reaction into a negative process in terms of employment. He also said:

“This is a very difficult time for hospitality, because the next few weeks are particularly busy. They give a false sense of feeling that everything is okay … it’s going to have a catastrophic effect, moving into the new year”.


He said that just before Christmas, and things have got worse.

On top of that, UKHospitality said that the national insurance increase at the Budget will lead to business closures and job losses within a year. It said that

“the changes to the NICs threshold are not just unsustainable for our businesses, they are regressive in their impact on lower earners and will impact flexible working practices which many older workers and parents rely on. Unquestionably, they will lead to business closures and to job losses within a year”.

I was particularly pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, about his new evidence on pubs. The British Institute of Innkeeping, which has warned that the Budget will see 75% of pubs cut hours, thinks that 40% will reduce opening times and that one in three will make staff redundant. It said:

“The Budget, billed to support working people, will pull the rug out from under these already fragile small businesses and significantly reduce the employment opportunities they can provide. 75% will cut staff hours, 40% will reduce opening hours and 1-in-3 will make staff redundant”.


This will have an extraordinarily damaging impact on the sector and the economy.

More than 200 leading restaurant, pub and hotel companies including Stonegate, Greene King, Wetherspoons and Young’s wrote to the Chancellor warning that the Budget will cost the industry £3.4 billion a year. They said:

“As leaders of hospitality businesses, we are compelled to highlight our grave fears about the impact of the Budget, particularly relating to the Employer NICs threshold. Alongside the changes to the national minimum wage levels this will cost hospitality—at a conservative estimate—£3.4 billion a year”.


I would be grateful if the Minister would provide an actual number.

Finally, Simon Emeny, chief executive of Fuller’s, which owns about 400 pubs and hotels and employs almost 5,000 people, said he was “just utterly disappointed” by the Chancellor’s choices. He claimed they “disproportionately” impacted hospitality, which is a big employer of young people and part-time workers.

These are real impacts and the Government’s changes are disproportionately affecting mainly small and vibrant businesses such as these. The biggest hit is from the decrease in the threshold, which could be phased in. Alternatively, the Government could help smaller businesses by increasing the employment allowance, as I have also suggested. I simply urge the Government to act.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, which seeks to prevent commencement of this Bill until an impact assessment is published for the hospitality sector. Delaying commencement of this Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government, of course, carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance.

As I have said before, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seeks to increase the employment allowance for those employed in the hospitality sectors. The Government are taking action as part of this Bill to protect the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that next year, 865,000 employers will pay no employer national insurance at all; more than half of employers see no change, or gain overall, from this package. The specific data the noble Baroness requested is not broken down in the way she asks for.

Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors would add additional complexity to the tax system, and adding further spending pressures would require higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In light of these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

I am grateful for all the thoughtful contributions to this debate and, in particular, to my noble friend Lady Fleet for her impassioned defence of the arts sector, and to the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for standing up for pubs. In particular, I note the contribution on Amendment 49 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

I urge the Minister to consider the amendments we have been debating and to understand the impact on the livelihoods provided by those in the hospitality industry. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I simply want to ask the Minister whether he had changed his view. The impact note came out in November. It was probably drafted based on data relating to before then, when it was far from clear what changes these national insurance measures would precipitate. What we have seen—we have heard from a working retailer today—is that this is having a depressing effect on confidence and jobs across the country. I hope that, before Report, the Minister will reflect on that and give us some assurance as to how the negative effects, which will affect his prime mission of growth, can be dealt with and alleviated.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

On all three issues, as we pointed out from these Benches on day one, it is not assessments or messing around with the employment allowance that will solve the problem but an exemption for these providers, which provide extremely important NHS care in our communities.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 44, 45 and 46 and to Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I agree with everything that he said.

Primary care facilities have been hung out to dry. The Government have already acknowledged that the NHS should be exempted from the jobs tax. It is unfortunate that they have made the bizarre decision not to include other healthcare providers, such as GPs, pharmacies and dentists, which serve the same purpose as NHS providers.

We need to get to the bottom of two issues: first, why GPs, pharmacies and dental practices have not been included, as the NHS has, in the exemptions from the increase in employer national insurance contributions; and, secondly, why GPs, pharmacies and dentists will not benefit from any increase in the employment allowance.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told BBC “Question Time” in November:

“GP surgeries are privately-owned partnerships, they’re not part of the public sector”,


and

“they will therefore have to pay”.

However, GPs are recognised as public authorities in existing law, such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000. They may be privately owned partnerships, but that does not reflect how they operate. Not only that but because they are legally classed as public authorities, they will not be eligible for the increased employment allowance, so they will have to pay the full national insurance increase.

Section 2(1) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 states:

“A person cannot qualify for an employment allowance for a tax year if, at any time in the tax year, the person is a public authority which is not a charity”.


Section 2(2) defines a public authority as

“any person whose activities involve, wholly or mainly, the performance of functions (whether or not in the United Kingdom) which are of a public nature”.

GP surgeries, whether they are privately owned partnerships or not, exclusively provide NHS services: their activities wholly involve the performance of public functions. The Minister confirmed last week that the employment allowance does not apply to charities, which my research confirms. Does he agree that the allowance should apply to these other vital services—pharmacies, dentists and GPs? That would be a simple change. Previous Conservative Governments recognised this. We fully funded and offset any increases in employment costs for GPs; this is acknowledged by the British Medical Association.

Given that the Institute of General Practice Management, which represents GP practice managers, estimates that the jobs tax will cost the average GP practice around £20,000 a year, it is all the more vital that we offset these costs by allowing GPs to receive the employment allowance, preferably at an increased rate of £20,000, as my amendment suggested. It may not be much but it might help with non-GP staff in surgeries, in pharmacies and in dentists. I am looking all the time at changes and concessions that might not cost the Government too much, but I do not get the feeling that the Government understand the difficulties that some of these sectors are in.

It is not just GPs that will suffer. Community Pharmacy England estimates the cost, as I think we already heard, at £50 million in total. That is part of the treble whammy that we heard about from my noble friend Lord Jackson. I am especially concerned about this because of the impact of these changes across the private-sector end of healthcare, because its work makes life easier for NHS services, reducing pressure on A&E and on other public health services.

I spoke to a local pharmacist yesterday. He is a worried man. He believes that when the new NICs charges come through, he will have too little left at the end of the period to invest in his shop and his vaccine services. So, he will be lacking the crucial application of capital to keep the business up to date and serviceable. He will also look to reduce hours. At present, he is open early and late, providing a superb service to the local community—indefatigable, as he was through Covid. I have to say that the pharmacy in my local Wiltshire village is already closing on Saturday, and it is a half-hour drive to another or to the local A&E. Multiply these types of decision by the hundreds of thousands of pharmacies, dentists and GP surgeries across the country, and you can see that the Government’s failure to compensate for the NICs increases is an act of self-harm. Can the Minister therefore confirm that, as a minimum, the Government will include GPs, pharmacies and dentists, who provide NHS services for the public benefit, in the employment allowance?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Just for absolute clarity, community pharmacists can claim the employment allowance. Of the other two services the noble Baroness mentioned, GPs cannot but dentists can if their NHS work is below 50%. It is important that we get that absolutely correct for the record.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I was actually asking the question about this, as we did on charities. The Minister confirmed the position very helpfully last time, and I am asking him to clarify the position and look positively at trying to extend this. I am delighted that some community pharmacies get the employment allowance and would like to see it increased to alleviate difficulties in the sorts of small chemists I was talking about. If we can find another way, I would be delighted as well, but this 50% rule seems a bit odd, and I wonder whether the Minister could clarify or have a look at it. Frankly, it was very good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in view of his role in community pharmacies, and, more worryingly, to learn from him just how many pharmacies are closing. When I was in retail and we had pharmacies, there was actually a battle to buy extra licences so that more pharmacies could be opened. If it is going in the other direction, that is not good news for our healthcare services, which we all care so much about.

I look forward to a positive response from the Minister on this important area, which is complicated.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, which seeks to prevent commencement of the Bill until an impact assessment is published for community pharmacies. Delaying its commencement would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.

The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have said before, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and taxation and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek to increase the employment allowance for those employed in primary care, including in GP surgeries, dentist surgeries and pharmacies. The distinction between those in the public sector who will be compensated and those who will not follows existing practice and is the same as the distinction that the previous Government used for their health and social care levy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked specifically about eligibility for the employment allowance. Eligibility is not determined by sector but depends on the make-up of an individual business’s work. HMRC guidance explains that this is based on whether an organisation is doing 50% or more of its work in the public sector. It is therefore down to individual organisations to determine their eligibility for any given year. The employment allowance was introduced in 2014 by the previous Government. This Government have not changed the eligibility rules on the employment allowance in any way, beyond removing the £100,000 threshold.

The revenue raised from the measures in the Bill will play a critical role in restoring economic stability and funding the NHS. As a result of measures in the Bill and the wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive over £20 billion extra over two years to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. Primary care providers—in general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eyecare—are important independent contractors which provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult each sector about what services it provides, and what money it is entitled to in return under its contract. As in previous years, this will be dealt with as part of that process.

The Government have announced a proposed £889 million uplift for general practice in 2025-26 and have set out the proposed areas of reform which will help us to deliver on our manifesto commitments. This is the largest uplift to GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework and means that we are reversing the recent trend, with a rising share of total NHS resources going to general practice. We have started consulting with the General Practitioners Committee England of the British Medical Association on the 2025-26 GP contract and will consider a range of proposed policy changes. These will be announced in the usual way, following the close of the consultation later this year.

The Department of Health has entered into consultation with Community Pharmacy England regarding the 2024-25 and 2025-26 funding contractual framework. The final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way following this consultation. The NHS in England invests around £3 billion on dentistry every year. NHS pharmaceutical, ophthalmic and dental allocations for integrated care systems for 2025-26 have been published alongside NHS planning guidance.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It would be helpful if the Minister clarified that. I am concerned about this backward-lookingness that tends to be a feature of our discussions, because we are trying to look forward and make sure that growth stops flatlining, so that this economy grows in the coming months and years. Saying that a particular rule on employment was laid down in the past and therefore that the Government are not going to change it is a mistake.

In this area, there is a lot of evidence of a problem. The NHS has been compensated for these steep increases. The private sector part of the health services sector, which I know the Minister’s Secretary of State and his advisers think can play an important part in the future, is being sold down the river. That seems to be a pity; we should take this opportunity to try and do something to improve things.

I withdraw my amendment—no, I have not moved it. Forgive me.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

People are withdrawing their amendments before even moving them.

If I could beg the indulgence of the Committee briefly, I wonder what the Liberal Democrats’ view on this policy is because I have a Liberal Democrat press release dated 16 December, entitled, “Liberal Democrats table amendment to exempt health and care providers from NICs hike”. Many Liberal Democrat MPs in the other place are quoted. I was not able to discern it in his remarks but is the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, against the whole policy with regard to community pharmacies and NICs, or just against the concept of doing a proper, thorough and robust empirical analysis and impact assessment?