Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I recognise that these two statutory instruments deal with technical measures and in and of themselves have limited impact. They are essentially a tidy-up of the text to reflect broader changes made since Brexit to the financial regulatory system. The FSMA 2023 SI transfers to the PRA responsibility for setting the capital buffers that banks are required to hold in addition to minimum capital requirements. The PRA is a strong regulator, but it has taken a series of measures to move in the direction of lighter touch, motivated by its competitiveness and growth objective. I have spoken before about my concern that the PRA, for example, is increasingly willing to turn a blind eye to the illiquidity of assets. When powers are transferred to the PRA, as they are by this SI, a significant measure of transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight disappears. Capital buffers are critical to the stability of the banking system, and I remain concerned when parliamentary oversight in this key area is significantly weakened, as it is by the measures that both surround and are then captured by this SI.

The second statutory instrument deals with the markets in financial instruments and again affects a transfer of power and responsibility, this time to both the FCA and the PRA. Once again, it is a move to a less transparent and less accountable system. The rules can now be changed, presumably in line with the smarter regulatory framework that the Government have put forward, and they both allow divergence from the EU and a lighter-touch approach. Divergence has its own risk, as it has implications for cross-border business, and Parliament will not have a voice any more than as a significant consultee. Frankly, experience suggests that the regulators look at Parliament’s views in these consultations and treat them as relatively irrelevant compared to the views of industry.

I note that the Minister described the regulators as expert, independent regulators. He would have used exactly that same phrasing before the 2007 crash, and we still live with the repercussions of that crash. Blind trust in the regulator is exceedingly inadvisable. I have tried in previous speeches to list some of the erosions of protections that were introduced after the crash. They include: the competitiveness and growth objective for regulators; the changing to matching adjustment; insolvency UK; significantly increasing the illiquidity of the insurance sector; the removal of the cap on bankers’ bonuses; the permanent permission for pension funds to transact derivatives without using central counterparties, thereby avoiding putting in place margin collateral, which puts them seriously at risk in any kind of financial volatility in unstable times; the watering down of the senior managers’ regime, which is key to accountability; the weakening of the financial ombudsman; the pressure on pension funds to invest in high-risk, illiquid assets; and the uncertainty that now exists around bank ring-fencing.

That is a partial list of the erosions that I have been able to pick up, and I am sure that, if the Government sat down and thought about it, they could come up with a far longer list and perhaps even suggest that this was a huge positive. But it is notable that Parliament will have no further say, now that these SIs have gone through, any more than just an ordinary consultee, in a further erosion of these various protections. Frankly, while Parliament will get reports that will allow it to look at the impact, that will be very much in retrospect, which I suggest is very late in the day.

I repeat a request that I have made before for the Government to publish a compendium of the changes that have been made that increase risk in the financial sector and a look at those risk implications. My view is that, without that degree of transparency, Parliament cannot do its proper job.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of these statutory instruments and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her gloss on that.

Today we are considering the instrument on capital buffers as well as the Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations. While each is described as largely technical, both help to shape the future of our financial regulatory framework. Obviously we on these Benches are happy to consider them together and to raise some questions about how they link to the Government’s wider ambitions for stability, innovation and growth.

We recognise that both instruments form part of the wider process of revoking retained EU law and restating and embedding that in the smarter regulatory framework under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. It is important that our regime is clear and coherent and reflects the institutional responsibilities of the regulators, whether the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee or the Financial Conduct Authority.

For me, the most important current issue for the financial regulators is whether they are really adjusting their rules, their outlook and their culture to pursue growth and competitiveness, as they were recently required to do. Is the Minister in a position to assure us that the PRA and FCA have taken vigorous action to meet the Government’s requests and instructions on this vital point? I recall that the Chancellor wrote to them last autumn. What were the key demands, and what did they do in reply? What are the opportunities for growth, bearing in mind the current challenges outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Kramer? Although I do not agree with all that they said, I think it is important to debate that.

I have a few other questions. On capital buffers, while the instrument is described as technical, it involves substantive changes in transferring responsibility for buffers, such as the capital conservation buffer and the global systemically important institutions buffer, to the PRA. Can the Minister clarify how the Government will ensure sufficient parliamentary oversight of these crucial prudential tools, now that they will be set directly by the regulator? As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, it is now a less transparent system, so Parliament needs a strong voice in the post-EU world.

Of course, capital buffers are at the heart of keeping our financial system stable. We learned in painful ways during the financial crisis what happens when banks lack the resilience that they need in times of stress. The framework we have now is well established, but risks are evolving all the time. Can the Minister share the Government’s view on whether today’s capital requirements are still fit for purpose, particularly in the light of the growing challenges from shadow banking, digital assets and climate-related exposures?

We note that the second instrument retains certain key definitions from the MiFID organisational regulation, while paving the way, as the Minister said, for the revocation of firm-facing provisions. The intention is to allow the FCA and the PRA to take forward responsibility for detailed rules, tailoring them more closely to the needs of the UK market. The Minister has explained the rationale for that, but I ask him to expand on how these changes will not only safeguard market integrity and, I think he said, prevent the gaps that might arise—but encourage innovation and investment and growth, which I think we all agree that we need if the economy is to move forward positively.

What steps will the Treasury take to ensure that regulators’ rule-making in this area is aligned with the broader ambition of using financial services as a driver of economic prosperity, the point I addressed earlier?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions and remarks on what are really technical issues. There is no real policy change, but the issues are none the less important. As the noble Baronesses said, one of the key issues is that we want to ensure that the economy grows. As far as our financial regulation infrastructure is concerned, it is always welcome to have heard from the IMF that the architecture that we have now is some of the best of its kind in the world. The IMF also endorsed the Government’s fiscal plans as striking

“a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability”.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the Government are committed to upholding financial stability, which is a prerequisite of our position as a leading global financial centre. This is about rebalancing our approach to risk and pushing back on some of the mission creep that we have seen over the past decade. There is scope to do this while continuing to protect financial stability, and obviously we will always keep this under review, which was one of the noble Baroness’s questions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about parliamentary scrutiny and how Parliament will continue to scrutinise what the FCA and the PRA are going to do. They are independent non-governmental organisations and their independence is vital to their role. However, they are fully accountable to the Government and Parliament for how they exercise their functions, and this accountability is critical to ensure that they are advancing the objectives given to them by Parliament and performing at the optimum.

There were other questions about whether we are giving regulators too much power. We do not believe we are. We have a flexible system. Some of it is still going to be in legislation; some of it is going to be in regulation. The flexibility is there to ensure that the one thing that we create is growth in the economy. To the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I say it helps to deliver growth because growth is our ultimate ambition. To achieve this, the Government have announced the most extensive package of financial service reforms in over a decade. Reform will unlock growth by increasing the global competitiveness of the sector, reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, spurring the sector’s confidence and boosting innovation and opportunities, which is one of the issues that the noble Baroness raised. Obviously, it is about flexibility, and we need to ensure that we remain flexible in our approach to these regulations and continue to keep them under review.

We believe that these technical statutory instruments do that. It will be for the FCA and the PRA to decide how to streamline and improve their rulebooks. The FCA has already published a discussion paper seeking views on organisational and conduct rules that could be removed or simplified. It has also announced work to review who can be treated as a professional investor, another key plank of the current framework.

I hope this answers many of the questions that were asked. If there are any that I have left out, I am sure that we can write to noble Lords.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That was extremely helpful, especially the direction of travel in terms of reform. I would be very interested to know what the growth questions to the PRA and the FCA were. The letters were written last autumn. The Minister has repeated the vision, as it were, and has talked about flexibility, which can be very useful. If the Minister could reflect a bit further on that and on transparency—emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—that would be great. Are the regulators being transparent in the way that they move forward? That is another way that we are able to feed in and criticise if we are not happy.

My other point perhaps goes wider than this debate, but I asked how the Government were getting on with the process of making these post-EU regulations. I do not know whether the Minister can answer that now, but if not, it would be helpful to hear separately on that.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I do not know exactly where we are with working our way through the EU regulations et cetera and decoupling where we think it is necessary to decouple. I am sure that we can write in some respects. I am sure that we will be doing it diligently in the best interests of the UK and our international standing. On the other issues, I should have mentioned the Leeds reforms which were mentioned on 15 July. The changes will help UK banks to compete internationally and provide the vital investment required to drive growth in the economy. We are implementing the Basel III.1 arrangements on international banking by delaying investment banking requirements until 2028 and implementing other requirements in 2027 and communicating that the Treasury will avoid ring-fencing and that the PRA will undertake a review and report by early 2026. There is a lot going on in this area. The Leeds reforms are critical to that. What drives all this is the fact that we are pursuing growth. That is the one thing that we want to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I support the objective of growth. I used to be a Treasury Minister and I know that the Treasury will move forward, but it would be good to get this process done.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I welcome the Opposition’s support.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, if so many people want to speak, we should have a full debate on this plan, which is generally welcome. On digital, the plan summarises various digital improvements. There is also a red book for a child’s health, and feedback from Fitbits and data, which is all very good. However, there is no timescale for any of this and no plan to make patient records from GPs or hospitals available and viewable on the NHS app by the patient, as is the case in other countries. When will the Government give patients open access, as opposed to control by NHS professionals?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I hoped I had made it clear that this is the broad outline. Of course, more specific details will come forward and we will have the opportunity to debate them as they do so. The noble Baroness raises important points about challenges as well as great opportunities. I look forward to those debates; I think we are on a very positive way forward. However, I hope everyone understands that this is a 10-year plan for very good reason. We realise the scale of the challenges that face us, and we look forward to getting on with implementation.

Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, financial services fulfil a vital role for people and businesses across the UK and the Government are committed to ensuring high standards of customer protection. These regulations form part of this commitment by strengthening protections for customers, including consumers, businesses and charities, when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their provider.

While decisions to terminate services are generally commercial decisions, customers must be treated fairly. Noble Lords will be aware that concerns have been raised in this area over recent years. This has included concerns about services being terminated on the basis of customers’ lawful beliefs and political opinions. The Government are clear that customers should not see services terminated due to lawful freedom of expression. There are already laws that prohibit providers discriminating against UK consumers on these grounds. However, in other areas existing legislation does not always provide appropriate protection and is not sufficiently clear.

Currently, payments legislation contains no obligation on providers to explain why they are terminating payment services, making it difficult for customers to understand the reasons for terminations, rectify issues or know whether to bring a complaint against their provider’s decision. Furthermore, the current requirement that providers must give customers at least two months’ notice does not always provide customers sufficient time to manage the impacts of a termination and, where needed, find an alternative provider. These regulations make changes to address these issues.

Specifically, the regulations will amend the Payment Services Regulations 2017 to require providers to give customers a longer notice period of at least 90 days before terminating a payment services contract and a sufficiently detailed and specific explanation so the customer understands why it is being terminated. Providers must also advise the customer of how to complain to their provider and of any right they have to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The regulations also clarify ambiguities in legislation to ensure that these new protections are applied consistently. There are some exceptions to the new requirements, mainly so that providers can continue to meet other legal requirements.

Lastly, the regulations make equivalent changes to the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 so that people who apply for and use basic bank accounts will benefit from the new rules. These changes will increase transparency for customers, ensuring that they understand providers’ decisions and have more time and information to make a complaint or find an alternative provider. The changes will take effect from 28 April 2026 and apply to the termination of payment services contracts that are concluded for an indefinite period and entered into on or after that date.

I know that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this measure as an instrument of interest in its 25th report, published on 15 May. I am grateful for the consideration the Committee has given this legislation, and I shall respond to the points it raised.

First, the Government acknowledge that there have been concerns about customers being debanked on the basis of their lawful beliefs and political opinions, and that this formed part of what initially led to a review of legislation in this area. Since coming into office, this Government have taken a fresh look at the issue from a broader perspective. As I said earlier, providers are already prohibited from discriminating against UK consumers based on their lawful beliefs and political opinions, but there are shortcomings in wider legislation that governs how providers terminate payment services contracts. The Government are therefore taking a wider approach to strengthen legislation and to enhance fairness and transparency for all customers more generally.

Secondly, regarding the length of the 90-day notice period and the implementation period for the instrument, the Government’s approach is based on extensive engagement. We have sought to balance strengthening the protections for customers with minimising the burdens on firms.

In conclusion, these regulations would make important changes to ensure that customers are treated fairly, while respecting providers’ rights to make commercial decisions. I hope that the Grand Committee will endorse these reforms. I look forward to the debate and beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this statutory instrument in this brief debate. We note that these regulations build on previous legislation and arise from a consultation that began under the previous Conservative Government in July 2023.

I agree with the Minister that the extension of the minimum notice period for contract termination from two months to 90 days is a prudent and welcome measure. Even more significant is the requirement for payment service providers to provide detailed and specific reasons for termination, thereby enhancing transparency and fairness and discouraging needless debanking; we all saw the unfortunate effect of Coutts’ closure of Nigel Farage’s account. Additionally, informing customers of their right to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service is a useful safeguard.

I have two problems with these regulations. First, I am concerned by the wide-ranging exemptions to the new rules—“exceptions” is probably the right word. These include the anti-money laundering requirements and the suspicion of serious crime, as well as the possible commission of a public order or harassment offence. These are substantial exceptions that could be the subject of unfair debanking, with the accused unable to know what it is claimed he or she has done wrong. I therefore welcome the change in the threshold from “reasonable belief” to “reasonable grounds to suspect” for serious crime exceptions following consultation, but I wonder whether this is enough.

I should add that small and medium-sized businesses are not exempted from the new requirements. What targeted support or guidance will be provided to help these providers manage the increased compliance burden? These measures could cause problems for businesses already under pressure from NICs and the prospect of new regulation. We all want fairness but the net cost to businesses is £6.4 million a year, by the normally prudent Treasury estimates. This means a net present value of minus £55.4 million.

In the light of this, how do the Government plan to monitor and evaluate these regulations over time to ensure that the extended notice periods and disclosure obligations generally lead to better outcomes for consumers, rather than creating additional administrative burdens for the suppliers of financial services? Can the Government also clarify how conflicts between these termination requirements and other legal obligations on payment service providers will be managed, especially where other laws might take precedence? What mechanisms will be in place to resolve such conflicts fairly and transparently?

Secondly, the main problem for consumers of payment services is not being able to secure a bank account at all. I know this from my own family’s experience of being denied banking, reducing the scope for moving to a different, more competitive bank. This is on grounds such as being a publicly exposed person, which is our experience; selling arms, which it seems wrong to exclude given our growing defence needs; or ungrounded fear by the provider of money laundering. What is the Government’s position on this difficult area of securing a bank account?

I look forward to the Minister’s response and to continued engagement with the Government and regulators to ensure that these important reforms deliver tangible and lasting benefits for payment service users.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her speech and those questions. These are important regulations which clarify the situation we have lived under over the last few years, as far as this issue is concerned.

On the several points and questions she has raised, I will answer the last one first, which was about access to banking services. The Government recognise the vital role that financial services provide; that is why we have introduced these new rules. The Government are focused on account closures as a priority. We continue to monitor wider access to bank account provision but recognise this is largely a commercial matter. Some 120 banking hubs have opened; another 200-plus will be opened in the next few years. That is not the limit or the target; it could go beyond that, but it depends on what LINK, which provide them, wants to do. It is, obviously, an ongoing issue. We want to ensure everybody has access to them.

On the new requirements that the noble Baroness suggested, there are important public policy reasons for the exemptions, which are necessary to enable payment service providers to continue to discharge other legal obligations or manage complex scenarios—for example, in relation to financial crime.

On the question of whether we will publish guidance, the Financial Conduct Authority, as the relevant regulator, will update the guidance to reflect the legislative changes. The Government have worked closely with industry, law enforcement and regulatory partners to ensure that expectations of payment service providers are clear.

With that, I think I have covered all the questions. I conclude by saying that the Government are committed to ensuring high standards of customer protection and financial inclusion across the financial services sector. These regulations make important changes but address long-standing concerns about protection given to customers when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their providers. This increased amount of notice and transparency will make it easier for customers to understand and manage the impact of their provider’s decisions, and to make a complaint or find an alternative provider where necessary. The changes will help deliver fairer outcomes and support the Government’s ambitions to deliver for working people. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I was a little disappointed about the response on two points. One is on this business of small and medium-sized businesses. The Minister rightly referred to the FCA as the body that is responsible for guidance. It is supposed to care about small businesses and growth, following the letter that the Chancellor wrote to them. The Minister mentioned that there are more small and new businesses in the pipeline; that is good news. Small business spectacles are important, both for financial service providers and, indeed, for unfortunate customers who are trying to get bank accounts.

That was the second point: perhaps it was not possible as I did not give notice of the question, which is not the subject of these regulations, but he did not inform us as to what the latest is on helping people to open a bank account. His objective is the same as mine: to make sure that everybody can do that. He may know from discussion with other parliamentarians that the publicly exposed person issue has been a big one, and there are other issues. I would be interested to be referred to an update on how we are getting on on getting people to open bank accounts. It is important, in societies, for people to have bank accounts and not to be excluded. It is a great pity that it is so difficult, if you are a publicly exposed person, to move banks. That seems unfortunate.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I think these regulations help clarify all that. As far as small and medium-sized businesses are concerned, the Treasury Select Committee published figures in 2024 on the termination of business accounts in 2023. They were sourced from eight UK banks. The Treasury estimates that, on average, around 64% of business accounts were terminated due to suspicious activity or financial crime, due diligence or fraud, 10% were terminated because of dormancy and less than 1% for political exposure or other issues. We can all amplify the politically exposed people, and we know it is important, but the vast majority of closures and issues that we have are with financial crime and due diligence.

On the other question, we all want everyone who wants to have a bank account to have one. The decision to provide banking services is generally a commercial one by providers. I have already mentioned that 120 to 150, I think, banking hubs have been opened already, and a lot more will be opened. It is not a target. Once we get there, we can probably open more, but that has to be in consultation with the industry. The Government want to ensure that customers are treated fairly when providers decide to withdraw those services. We are focused on account terminations as a priority, given the material impact that a loss of banking services could have on a business already in operation. More widely, the Government continue to monitor evidence in relation to accessing banking services and welcome the FCA’s work in this area.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am reassured. It is good to have the figure for politically exposed debanking of 1%, although the significance depends on the total figure for the number of cases. It is more about when people are trying to get bank accounts. I think that the Farage event has led to a degree of understanding that it is important not to debank people who are already customers. What I think is less well understood is how when people who are, for example, politically exposed try to get a bank account, they have difficulties. I hope the regulators such as the FCA think about this because we want to try to make sure that people can have proper bank accounts. If there is any more material on that side of things, I give notice that I would be very interested in it, though I appreciate that I sprung this question on the Minister today although it is not the subject of the regulations.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I think increasing the time period from 60 days to 90 days and banks now having to write to the customer to say, “These are the reasons why we have this issue with your bank account” and, where it is appropriate and where they can, having to say that they can refer it to the ombudsman all helps. Obviously, this will be kept under review, but I think it is an important improvement on where we were in previous regulations.

Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear and helpful introduction of these regulations.

I just have two issues to raise; it would overegg them to describe them as issues of concern, but we need to recognise them. First, these clearing obligations are there to protect investors. The level of risk is materially increased by removing those obligations; we need to understand that. On balance, it may still be a reasonable thing to do, but we need to recognise that there is risk involved.

The second, bigger issue is that the Pension Schemes Bill, which was published an hour ago—I am holding it in my hand—makes significant on pension schemes in terms of the investments that they hold and the way in which they undertake their investment policy. It needs to be recognised that this very minor measure is part of that more general review, which will take place because of the Bill. I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Minister report that the policy will be kept under review. The fact that we have this pensions Bill means that it will inevitably be part of that process. The whole thing needs to fit together both to provide the investments that secure members’ benefits and to provide members with the reassurance that their money is being kept well.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important debate before the Grand Committee today. While technical in nature, the debate strikes at the very heart of our pensions system. It concerns the management of risk, the generation of returns for pension schemes and the financial security of our country. Derivatives play a crucial role in the operation of pension funds. They allow for efficient exposure to asset classes without necessitating the purchase of the underlying assets. They enable tactical asset allocation decisions to be executed more swiftly and cost-effectively than physical rebalancing and, through leverage, they offer the ability to increase market exposure without tying up significant amounts of capital. I know all of this from my experience as a trustee of the Tesco pension fund some years ago. Above all, derivatives are essential because pension funds face long-term liabilities that are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates, to inflation and to currency fluctuations.

These instruments are vital in managing such risks, especially in an uncertain and volatile world. Interest rate swaps hedge against fluctuations in interest rates that affect the valuation of liabilities. Inflation swaps protect against unexpected shifts in inflation, which is especially relevant where pensions are index-linked. Currency forwards and options manage foreign exchange risk where assets or liabilities are denominated in non-sterling currencies. It is the management of risk more than anything else that justifies their inclusion in the portfolio strategies of pension funds and, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said, the level of risk is materially increased by this regulation. He also rightly referred to the Pension Schemes Bill, which has only just been published. I am afraid that due to other commitments, I have not yet had time to study it.

Since the European Market Infrastructure Regulation was introduced in 2012, pension funds have been granted an exemption from the central clearing obligation, recognising their unique challenge in meeting margin requirements as central counterparties. Pension funds operate on a long-term, illiquid investment model, and this fundamentally mismatches the short-term, high-frequency liquidity demands of CCPs, particularly under stressed market conditions.

Will the Minister outline the contingency plans in place should the absence of mandatory clearing suddenly appear to increase the risk of counterparty defaults?

I have to say that the exemption from these insurance-type arrangements of a CCP carries its own risks. The Government bear a heavy responsibility to maintain confidence in a financial system upon which livelihoods depend. The government review mentioned by the Minister concluded that removing the exemption could impair the ability of pension funds to invest in productive assets. That must be weighed carefully against the imperative of effective risk management. Can the Minister clarify how bilateral arrangements will be monitored for resilience, given that derivatives are no longer subject to central clearing? He talked about keeping this under review, which I think was helpful.

Our financial markets are deeply embedded in the global system. Can the Minister explain how this move aligns with international financial regulatory frameworks and, indeed, with the EU and US, which have slightly different rules from the UK? Furthermore, has the Minister assessed the potential reputational impact on the UK’s standing in international markets, particularly in the context of post-G20 commitments to mandatory central clearing, which the Minister referred to? Finally, will the Minister publish the underlying risk analysis or cost benefit assessment that supports the decisions to go for an indefinite extension period? Without such transparency, it is difficult to understand how the Government have reached their conclusion and indeed why they have chosen this policy path.

The current impact assessment states that the measure

“mitigates the risk of disruption to the market”

that might occur if pension funds were required to restructure their investment strategies “at short notice”. This would be ahead of the exemptions expiring, which happens to be 18 June—the week after next. However, this is a narrow, short-term cost analysis. I am interested in the wider picture of longer-term cost versus the benefits of alternative systems, so I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on whether he is willing to publish his cost-benefit assessment or, perhaps, to say bit more about the detail.

I urge the Minister to engage deeply with the concerns raised and to provide reassurance that the Government’s decision rests on a sound and transparent evidential foundation. We are dealing with an important subject and a risk that, as I am sure we all agree, needs to be properly managed in the interests of UK plc.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for their contributions and questions. First, to answer them both, one thing that the Government are after is growth, obviously, but the other thing is financial stability; both of their contributions referred to that. This is a key priority for the Government. However, the evidence on whether removing the exemption would generate direct financial stability benefits was mixed. For example, some responses to the call for evidence noted that removing the exemption could make stress events worse by increasing liquidity pressures on pension funds. In contrast, the Government found strong evidence that pension funds would need to hold more cash and reduce investment in productive assets if the exemption were removed.

On the other issues, such as how the underlying risk will change and how we will keep that under review, the statutory instrument provides long-term clarity for market participants, which is very important in terms of the policy position. This will help with long-term planning of investment strategies by pension funds to meet their future liabilities. As I have noted, the Government will keep this policy under review in co-ordination with the UK regulatory authorities. If there are changes to market dynamics or wider government reforms that have a material impact on the value of mandatory central clearing for pension funds, the Government may reassess this issue.

On the increased burden on pension funds, this policy maintains the status quo. Removing the exemption would have placed more strain on pension funds. This gives assurance to the pension markets around the long-term consistency in our policy approach.

Finally, on the international market, our market is different from those of the EU and the United States as far as pensions are concerned. The response to the call for evidence indicated that the UK defined benefit market is structurally different from that of other jurisdictions, such as the US and the European Union, so it is appropriate that we take a different decision on this issue. The Government are committed to maintaining our high standards of regulation and financial services, including adhering to relevant international standards, where appropriate. In the US, pension schemes tend to be of shorter duration. There is also a larger and more diverse corporate bond market, which can be used for hedging; this means that the derivatives are used less there than they are in the UK.

I hope that these answers are what noble Lords are looking for.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is very helpful—particularly on the international side. One does need to look at this in an international context; nowadays, we are so aware of the ups and downs of global markets. However, the Minister did not answer the question about the impact assessment. It may be that he does not have an answer today, but this is something that I am often concerned about because I think that good cost-benefit analysis is vital to good government. I made the point that the cost-benefit analysis that we got was a rather short-term thing; it would be very helpful to have a response on that.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Basically, what we are doing is maintaining the status quo. Things have been like this for several years now; we are just ensuring that the status quo continues into the future. We will review it if we need to, such as if the dynamics in the market change, but what we are offering is consistency for the industry. That is an important aspect of this statutory instrument.

Devolved Authorities: Use of Resources

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, achieving value for money ought to be a priority for any Government, whether national, regional or local, especially a Government committed to growth. So I come back to the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: do the Government consider that the SNP Scottish Government’s actions on trans rights represented a good use of taxpayers’ money?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I appreciate the question that the noble Baroness has asked, but I think that the one thing that should focus our minds, besides the outcome of what the Supreme Court said, is what the Scottish Government should do, and we all should be doing, in the best interests of all the Scottish people. That must be to secure growth to make sure that the support that we have for our cities, our people and the NHS is for all the people in Scotland. It would be great to see the Scottish Government and the UK Government work closely together to ensure that that happens.

Child Trust Fund Accounts

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are working across departments and with all the providers to try to ensure that access is gained for people who have child trust funds. I am not quite sure what kind of relationship and communication we have with friendly societies, but I will make sure that someone writes to the noble Lord to let him know.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, to his place. There is a problem, as he said, so can he say whether he has formally consulted, or intends to, the financial institutions or the child trust fund providers on the feasibility of simplifying the process for young people accessing their funds? What steps might he take to ensure that they are more aware of the child trust fund accounts—perhaps using social media and so on—so that we communicate this opportunity for people to pick up these funds, which are not being claimed, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, explained?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

As of 5 April 2024, some 2.5 million child trust funds accounts and 670,000 mature child trust fund accounts had not been claimed. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that we marry up young people with those accounts. HMRC is working very closely with opinion-formers and stakeholders to try to ensure that this group is reached. This includes, for example, working closely with UCAS, joining with younger influencers who discuss personal finances online, and using traditional media and HMRC’s own social media channels to target young people to ensure that they know the trust funds exist.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief as the leader of the winding speeches. I just join the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, in saying to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Macpherson, that Parliament has given us the responsibility under the national insurance contributions legislation, to come forward with amendments and press them. I am not going to walk away from that responsibility simply because it looks rather difficult.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who talks about simplification, that it is very easy to have a high-level issue such as that, but I am not going to put simplification ahead of what will basically be the cancellation of something like 2 million GP appointments because of the additional costs on GPs. I am not going to sit by and watch dental practices cut back their services, so that we have much more of this DIY dental care that people are carrying out. I am shocked by the rise in dental sepsis alone. I am not going to sit here while pharmacies basically cut their hours and services. I am not going to sit here while adult social care—we have heard about so many cases—basically has to work out how it sets aside the most vulnerable in our society, because that is the implication.

We have heard also from hospices. People are being told now that their jobs are at risk. This is not a hypothetical or some exaggerated claim; this is a process that is under way across the community healthcare and social care sectors to absolutely cut back in response to this increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. We are trying to stop a disaster. When they came forward with their proposals, the Government did not absorb the fact the National Health Service does not work in isolation. It is part of a much more holistic, complex landscape, and if you undermine the private elements of both social care and community healthcare, you undermine the NHS, and that surely is not what the Government want to be doing under these circumstances.

I could go on because there is so much to be said, but it has been brilliantly said by so many across this House. If the Government were to stand up and say that they accepted this amendment, I think there would be a hallelujah, quite frankly. Will they please understand the problems we are trying to deal with? This is not hypothetical or playing party-political games; this is dealing with a really difficult and serious problem that our society is facing. I do not know quite what I can do in a winding speech, but if I can move anything, I will.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I echo much of what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, what my noble friend Lord Ahmad said about it being a pity that the Minister had not engaged more with all those affected, and the plea for fairness from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. This Bill is the most important economic measure the Government have put forward since they took office and, as has become apparent from our debates, especially the detailed examination in Committee, it is a misguided measure with numerous defects. It will hit hardest those sectors that employ more labour, such as care homes and hospices, but there will also be flow-through to SMEs and bigger businesses as they seek to cut costs and staff. We have seen this in action with big names such as Sainsbury’s shedding staff and the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recording collapsing confidence and planned headcount cuts in the surveys.

During our debate today, the Opposition are proposing amendments to reduce some of the Bill’s most egregious effects. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. We have to find a way to limit the impact of this ill-thought-out jobs tax. The tax system is not simple and we are where we are because of the choices the Government have made. The changes are having real impacts on real people in their everyday lives: on charities, small businesses, nursery schools, special needs drivers, pubs, young people and—the specific subject of this amendment—care homes, pharmacies, dentists, GP surgeries and hospices. That is why we are supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and will be voting in favour.

At every stage throughout the progress of this Bill, we have raised the plight of these sectors because of the decisions the Government made in the Budget. They are facing these changes in a very short timescale, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has rightly said. At every stage, the Government have remained unmoved. The Minister has been stony-faced and utterly unreceptive to the genuine and deeply felt concerns of millions of businesses and charity trustees across the country.

We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hope, about the Cyrenians, from my noble friend Lady Stedman- Scott about the sheer scale of the impact on charities, and from my noble friend Lady Fraser about the loss of jobs and skills and the difficulties of deciding what to do. These organisations and others are facing a financial cliff edge in April and that is thanks to the Government, who have chosen to put them in this position while at the same time choosing to give a £9.5 billion pay rise to their friends in the public sector, to pledge £8.3 billion to the amorphous GB Energy project and to increase day-to-day spending by £23 billion this year.

These were all choices, and it is hospices, charities, healthcare providers, early years settings and small businesses that will pay the price. That is what my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham was saying: he felt that it was the wrong choice.

In November last year, the Nuffield Trust predicted that the Government’s jobs tax would cost the independent sector’s social care employers in the region of £940 million in 2025-26, and that is on top of around £1.85 billion more that they need to meet the new minimum wage rates from April. These are all relevant to this amendment.

I am particularly concerned about the hospice sector, and that is why I have tabled my own amendment with the support of my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Howard of Lympne. Both my noble friends spoke with great eloquence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so I will not repeat any of that, but I will say that Hospice UK has confirmed to us that the sector is headed for a £60 million deficit this year. The Health Secretary announced £100 million to make sure we are protecting our hospices, but last week the Prime Minister was forced to admit that that is capital funding and will not have a direct impact on the day-to-day costs. Further to that, I understand from boring into the detail that the £26 million that the Minister mentioned in Committee on day 3 represents almost no new money at all; so, we have a big problem.

Finally, it was reported that the National Pharmacy Association has taken the unprecedented step of voting for collective action in protest at a £250 million hike in business costs that pharmacists face under the Government. If the Minister will not listen to the Official Opposition, perhaps he will listen to the experts, the GPs, the hospices and the charities, which are all telling us that the Government must think again. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: the Government must act urgently to protect our health and care providers, our GPs and our hospices before it is too late. Should the noble Baroness choose to test the opinion of the House, we will be with her in the Lobby.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (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 Barker and Lady Kramer, seeking to maintain the rates and thresholds at their current level for NHS commissioned services including GPs, dentists, social care providers and pharmacists. As noble Lords will know, as a result of the measures in this Bill and wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years, helping to deliver an additional 40,000 elective appointments every week.

Primary care providers, general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eyecare are important independent contractors who provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult with these primary care sectors about what services they provide and what money they are entitled to in return under their contract; this continues to be the case this year.

The Government have announced an extra £899 million for general practice in 2025-26 and have set out the proposed areas of reform which will help to deliver on our manifesto commitments. This is the largest uplift in GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework and reverses the recent declining trend in funding. As a result, a rising share of total NHS resources will now go to general practice. The Department of Health and Social Care is consulting with the General Practitioners Committee in 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 and Social Care has also entered into consultation with Community Pharmacy England regarding the 2024-25 and 2025-26 community pharmacy contractual framework, and the final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way following this consultation. The NHS in England invests around £3 billion in dentistry every year. NHS pharmaceutical, ophthalmic and dental allocations for integrated care systems 2025-26 were published alongside NHS planned guidance.

The noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Leigh, spoke about hospices. The Government recognise the vital role that hospices play in supporting people at the end of life and their families, and we recognise the range of cost pressures that the hospices sector has been facing over a number of years. As the noble Lords mentioned, we are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million increase for adult and children’s hospices to ensure they have the best physical environment for care. We have also allocated an additional £26 million in revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. The £100 million investment will go towards helping hospices improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, to ensure that patients continue to receive the best care possible.

Regarding social care, 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.

To answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. As a result of this Bill, from April 2025 the threshold of £100,000 or less will be removed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, to protect small businesses with fewer than 25 employees from the increase in national insurance. Before I begin, I should declare my chairmanship of a small fintech company, as declared in the register.

I am particularly concerned about the impact of the national insurance rise on SMEs because they are the main vehicle for job creation. A 2022 report by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation looked at the United States and found that, in 2019, companies in their first year created, on average, five jobs each, while companies older than that created, on average, just one new job every two years. A similar pattern can be found in the UK. Analysis by Santander of ONS data in 2018 showed that employment growth in SMEs was three times faster than in larger businesses in percentage terms.

The Government’s ambition in their Get Britain Working White Paper to increase the employment rate to 80% is laudable, and I very much support this objective as the president of the Jobs Foundation, again as declared in the register, but achieving this objective requires moving 2 million people from welfare into work. There are currently around 800,000 job vacancies in the economy, according to the ONS, so we need to create an additional 1.2 million jobs to achieve this target, and that will be very difficult with the employer NI rises. SMEs employ 16.6 million people in the economy, and small businesses, those which have between zero and 49 employees, provide 13 million jobs in the economy.

We should seize the national mission to get the employment rate back to pre-Covid levels. This target cannot be achieved if SMEs are not thriving. Therefore, I very much support the amendments to exempt smaller businesses from the increase in NI to enable them to fulfil their role as the biggest engine of job creation and, even more importantly, the biggest mechanism for poverty alleviation here in the UK.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate and I rise to speak briefly. I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for Amendment 2, and I commend the noble Baroness for championing part-time workers, as she has done during the passage of this Bill, much as my noble friend Lord Altrincham has been championing youth employment, which is also so important. She is right to raise the impact that the policy will have on jobs. We know that part-time workers are likely to be more at risk of losing their jobs or missing out on future opportunities as a result of this Bill, particularly as a result of the drop in the threshold, which is one of the proposals.

I also support the noble Baroness’s call for more information on the Government’s assessment of the impact of the Bill. I have tabled a review clause, which is in a later group, that goes wider than Amendment 36 and seeks to correct the Government’s failure to produce a proper impact assessment.

I should add that I have tabled Amendment 34—it has been put into this group—to increase the employment allowance available to farmers. Our farmers are hurting. “Starmer Farmer Harmer” signs are now a common sight on the country lanes of England, although I doubt many Ministers have seen them, but we will not press that amendment to a Division. We tabled that amendment to call on the Government, once again, to support our farmers and reverse the family farm tax, which is undermining, unfortunately, the long-term viability of British farming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to thank my colleagues. As the chief executive of a charity, I know that the sector is watching and listening to what we are doing here and urging us on to do everything we can to mitigate this disastrous policy.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, mentioned Scotland. In an earlier debate, it became apparent that the drafting of some of the amendments perhaps did not cover Scotland. Any charity in Scotland of any size has to be registered by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and I would want to be reassured that exemptions covered the entire sector. It amounts to 5% of Scotland’s workforce, and with an increasing number of redundancies and the struggle to recruit volunteers, the workforce is already under strain and potentially limited in its capacity to deliver services.

The Minister spoke earlier about the Government’s increased funding to various sectors, some of which are covered by the charity sector. However, he did not outline how that might help those not in receipt of public sector funding but who are delivering services which support public sector delivery.

Finally, as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, SEND transport is an issue firmly in my bag. We already know that the SEND system is under immense strain. We already know of children who cannot go to the school it has been assessed they should attend because of transport issues. This is very complex: transport is provided mostly by private providers. There is already a limited choice of schools. Many children need specialist vehicles to get from A to B. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, many firms will be forced to hand back contracts.

I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to these challenges.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seeks to establish a relief for early years settings, universities, charities and small businesses. These are all important sectors; they will be hit hard by the Government’s jobs tax, so we agree with the sentiments that she expressed. However, we have concerns about the financial implication of relief for all these sectors in one amendment. We are instead promoting some modest and separate amendments, which I am afraid makes for a big group.

Amendments 4, 14, 21 and 28 in my name would exempt charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the increase in employer national insurance contributions. My noble friend Lord Leigh spoke persuasively in favour of this proposal, following the pre-emption of his own amendments. My Amendment 35 proposes an increased level of employment allowance for charities.

Noble Lords across the House have been contacted by many charities which are facing tough financial decisions. We have had many worrying examples throughout the stages of this Bill. My noble friends Lady Sater and Lady Fraser made the case for action strongly. My latest example was L’Arche in the UK, which brings together people with and without learning disabilities in life-sharing communities. Again, they are facing hugely steep rises in employment costs. The most vulnerable people in our society will pay the price for Ministers’ misguided Budget decisions.

Amendment 5 seeks to protect children with special educational needs or disabilities. I know that the Licensed Private Hire Car Association SEND transport operators group has written to many noble Lords highlighting the issues that families who rely on these services are facing. It estimates that the associated local funding shortfall in the next tax year, 2025-26, in respect of the services it contracts out to private providers, will be £40 million. That is a relatively small number compared with the overall revenue expected from the jobs tax— £23 billion to £26 billion, depending on the year—but the impact on vulnerable children is wildly disproportionate to that revenue. Like my noble friend Lady Fraser, we feel very strongly that these vital services should be protected. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we prefer our formulation on SEND.

Finally, my Amendment 33 addresses early years provision by seeking to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. In government, we took strong action to support the early years sector, while expanding the free childcare offer to all children under five in England last year. The Government are right to adopt our expansion plan in full. We are grateful for that. However, some providers are worried that they will not be able to access the employment allowance because of the public work they do. It would be good if the Minister could look at that again. We are seeing very big cost increases in early years provision, which is extremely worrying.

In conclusion, the Official Opposition feel that the Government must change their approach. We are not satisfied by the Minister’s responses so far and our current intention is to divide on Amendments 4, 5 and 33.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

I will first address the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. The Government recognise that 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 we committed in our manifesto 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 challenging fiscal circumstances the Government inherited, in the October 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 over £8 billion in 2025-26.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would exempt providers of higher and further education from changes in the Bill. The Government of course recognise the great value of UK higher education in creating opportunity, as an engine for social mobility and growth in our economy and in supporting local communities. We will provide support for departments and other public sector employers for the additional employer national insurance contribution costs. This funding will be allocated to departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it is for devolved Governments to make their own decisions on how that money is allocated.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that all additional cost pressures will be considered as part of the spending review. The Autumn Budget provided an additional £300 million of revenue funding for further education for the financial year 2025-26, to ensure that young people develop the skills this country needs. This funding will be distributed specifically to support 16 to 19 student participation. Approximately £50 million of this funding will be made available to general further education colleges and sixth-form colleges for the period April to July 2025. This one-off grant will enable colleges to respond to current priorities and challenges, including workforce recruitment and retention. The remaining £250 million of funding will be made available in 16 to 19 funding rates in the academic year 2025-26, with the aim of ensuring that all 16 to 19 providers are funded on an equitable basis from 2025 to 2026. Furthermore, 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 which will expand access to high-quality flexible education and training for adults throughout their working lives.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Bennett and Lady Sater, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seek to exempt charities from the changes in this Bill and increase the employment allowance for them. The Government of course recognise the important role that charities play in our society and the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities. That is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500. This means that more than half of businesses, including charities, with national insurance liabilities will either gain or see no change next year.

As I have noted previously, it is important to recognise that all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax regime, with tax released for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, again asked me to cost his amendment; as I said in Committee, it is not for the Government to cost amendments that do not reflect government policy.

I turn to the amendments and proposed new clause tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, exempting providers of transport for special educational needs children to and from their place of education from the changes in this Bill and requiring the Government to publish an impact assessment on this topic. In the Budget and the recent provisional local government finance settlement, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26, which includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This additional funding has been determined based on a national assessment of the costs for directly employed staff across the public sector. However, this funding is not ring-fenced and it is for local authorities to determine how to use it across relevant services and responsibilities.

Furthermore, the Government are providing a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26. To support social care authorities to deliver these key services, we announced in the provisional local government finance settlement a further £200 million for adult and children’s social care. This will be allocated via the social care grant, bringing the total increase of this grant in 2025-26 to £880 million. This means that up to £3.7 billion of additional funding will be provided to social care authorities in 2025-26.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, seeking to exclude town and parish councils from the employer national insurance rate change, the Government have no direct role in funding parish and town councils and are therefore not providing further support to them for the employer national insurance changes.

Finally, on the proposed new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, requiring the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on the Scottish public sector, as I have set out previously, the Government have published an assessment of this policy in a tax information and impact note. This clearly sets out that around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 national insurance liability decrease and around 940,000 will see it increase. Around 820,000 employers will see no change.

The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook also 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 this policy change. The information provided is in line with other, similar tax changes and the Government do not intend to publish additional assessments. We will of course continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way.

In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned increase in employer National Insurance contributions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a person providing transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities. (1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for SEND transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities from the Government’s planned increase in employer National Insurance contributions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

12: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after “£96” insert “or,
(b) for a person providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities, £175.”Member’s explanatory statement
Exemption for SEND Transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities from the Government’s planned changes to the weekly threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

14: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after “£96” insert “or,
(b) for a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million, £175.”Member’s explanatory statement
Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned changes to the weekly threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

19: Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after “substitute” insert—
“(i) for a person providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities, £758, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for SEND Transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities from the Government’s planned changes to the monthly threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

21: Clause 2, page 1, line 14, after “substitute” insert—
“(i) for a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million, £758, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned changes to the monthly threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

26: Clause 2, page 1, line 15, after "substitute" insert—
“(i) for a person providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities, £9,100, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for SEND Transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities from the Government’s planned changes to the annual threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

28: Clause 2, page 1, line 15, after "substitute" insert—
“(i) for a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million, £9,100, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned changes to the annual threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

33: Clause 3, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) At end of section 1(2)(b), insert “or,(c) for an employer in the early years sector, £20,000.””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 early years sector from £10,500 to £20,000.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

37: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of effect on economic growthThe 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 the rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of the measures in this Act on economic growth within six months of the day on which it is passed.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my amendments in this group and to Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor.

One of the difficulties the House has faced in dealing with this Bill has been the Government’s refusal to provide official estimates of the effects they expect the proposals to have on the individual sectors of the economy where its effects are likely to be the most profound. When we discussed their assessment in Committee, the Minister referred us to the impact note published on 13 November 2024. But I am afraid it is a very limited document, with only five pages of substantive text and no detailed assessment of the impact of the national insurance charge on a number of very important areas. Given the harm this policy will have in the many sectors we have already discussed, it is vital that the Government assess this properly. So, as a second-best measure, we have suggested additions to the Bill requiring the Government to look at the various areas of concern and make an assessment of the effect of the NICs changes—including the employment allowance, which should of course limit the damage to the very smallest businesses.

My Amendment 38 would require a sector-by-sector analysis of the impacts of the Government’s jobs tax. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for supporting the amendment. It includes key areas that are adversely affected but that we have barely discussed today, notably hospitality, the creative industries and retail, whose challenges were starkly set out in Committee by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, with his unique experience of the sector.

Amendment 37 seeks to establish the Government’s view on the effect of the jobs tax on economic growth. We know that economic growth is the Chancellor’s number one policy, so I hope the Minister will be able to give the House some clarity on the Government’s expectations in this area. I also support my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s Amendment 42 and look forward to hearing from her.

We are very concerned about the Government’s failure to publish a full sector-by-sector impact assessment for this policy. I therefore intend to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 38.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend’s amendment. We debated impact assessments several times in Committee and the Minister’s reply was always the same formula. It went along the lines of: “HMRC has published a tax information note”—which the rest of the Committee thought was wholly inadequate—“and the Government never do any more than this on tax legislation. The Government intend to do no more in respect of this Bill”. That was not a proper debate on impact assessments. The formula hardly changed over the four days we spent in Committee. The Minister eventually cited some precedents, but they were much smaller in scale and different in impact, and provided a precedent only really for the fact that the Treasury treats Parliament with contempt when it comes to providing full information on legislation. It is about time that Parliament stood up to the Treasury. I urge noble Lords to support my noble friend’s Amendment 38.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I will briefly address the new clauses proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Noakes and Lady Lawlor, requiring the Government to conduct assessments on the economic and sectoral impacts of this Bill. As we discussed extensively in Committee, the Government have published an assessment of this policy in HMRC’s tax information and impact note. This sets out that around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 NICs liability decrease and around 940,000 will see it increase; around 820,000 employers will see no change. The OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, on growth and on inflation. The Government and the OBR have, therefore, already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other similar tax changes, and the Government do not intend to publish further assessments. The Government will, of course, continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way. As a result, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am sorry that he does not feel able to go further. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lady Lawlor and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for their support, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the time has come to take a stand. I do not share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. This is the sort of assessment that we do in the private sector, and in some other departments, and it is possible for the Government to add to the amendment in the other House if they feel they need to do so. We heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Ahmad that the Treasury had failed to consult individual sectors on the proposals under discussion. I know how averse the Treasury can be to that, having been a Minister in a similar position in the Treasury. I also share the fascination of the noble Lord, Lord Davies with the state of the National Insurance Fund, but I think that is for another day.

The Government’s impact assessment has been woefully inadequate for a change on such a huge scale. It is in the interests of the public that we understand fully the impact of the Government’s jobs tax on individual sectors—albeit retrospectively—and the overall figures that we have received from the Minister, which have been helpful in themselves, are just not enough. So I intend to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 38, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 37.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

38: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of effect on certain sectors(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the day on which the Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on the persons and sectors in subsection (2). (2) The review must consider the impact on—(a) charities;(b) creative industries;(c) dentists;(d) early years providers;(e) farms;(f) general practitioners;(g) hospices;(h) hospitality;(i) pharmacies;(j) retail;(k) small businesses;(l) social care;(m) universities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of the measures in this Act on certain sectors within six months of the day on which it is passed.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

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?

Stock Market: First-time Investors

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the respected and engaging noble Lord, Lord Lee, for such an interesting debate. In my view, our theme today has two aspects. The first is helping individuals to build their own individual wealth—a worthy endeavour—and the second, equally important, is achieving this while strengthening the British economy. Investing in the stock market offers an important way for people to grow their savings, plan for the future and gain financial independence—all important in a free country and a free economy.

In 2024, some 23% of Brits—roughly 12.5 million people—said they had invested in the stock market, making stocks and shares the most popular investment type. This is a notable increase from 18% in 2023, partly reflecting the fact that last year was a good year for stocks and, of course, in the long run equities yield more than bonds or interest-bearing accounts. It is, however, under half the proportion in the US, as my noble friend Lord Leigh pointed out.

Before addressing the imaginative proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, we should remind ourselves that, for most working people, pensions are the best investment. This is because employers usually at least match individual pension contributions, and because pension savings have tax advantages—albeit that the Chancellor’s Budget decision reduced those benefits. I had an interesting meeting with the Pensions Management Institute last week about how defined contribution pensions might be adapted to encourage more savings into both short-term and lifelong national savings plans, in partnership with business. This would also benefit the UK stock market. I understand that the Resolution Foundation has developed some similar ideas. Will the Minister get the new Pensions Minister to meet them, particularly given his Resolution Foundation background?

I strongly believe that we need people to save and invest more, which brings me to the innovative suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on how we can encourage young people to invest. The first is to give schools shares in government-owned NatWest stock, or in regional public companies, so that the pupils can use the dividends to invest elsewhere and learn about risk and reward from their experience. He is absolutely right that financial matters need to become part of the school curriculum. This was indeed one of the secondary recommendations in my review of the state pension age.

Some 47% of UK adults do not feel confident about making financial decisions, and 61% of young adults do not recall receiving financial education at school, so they do not understand the glories of compound interest or the associated importance of investing early and of not putting all one’s eggs in one basket—the diversified portfolio that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, talked about. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will commit to improving the financial education of young people? I sense support for this across the House, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and even from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who rightly spoke of the dangers of bitcoin.

A second idea relates to ISAs. I have to say that it was disappointing that the new Government decided to abandon Jeremy Hunt’s plans for a British ISA. I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, of linking future ISAs more closely to UK investments merits consideration, and I agree that grandparents as well as parents should be able to take out ISAs. However, I am against the idea, mooted in the papers, of abandoning the cash ISA, which is a good savings vehicle for those who want to take less risk. I would add that the lifetime ISA, introduced under the previous Government, has seen a notable increase in popularity.

As for the other ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on non-executive directors, premium bonds and company reports, I understand his good intentions, but they are all new regulatory requirements and we need to be lifting the burden of regulation to drive growth. We need to reduce, not increase, the burdens, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, with her stock exchange and European background, was making. The path to growth is laden with good intentions and, without great care, new legislation becomes a Christmas tree of burdens, as we are seeing with so many of the new Bills.

However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lee, and I believe that we should encourage first-time investors, especially the young, to invest in our stock market.