National Insurance: Employer Contributions

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Humphreys

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, refer your Lordships to my registered interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. The devolved Governments will receive funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way in 2025-26. The Welsh Government have confirmed that they will use this funding to help local government in meeting increases in national insurance contribution costs. The Government have also announced £515 million of support for local government in England to manage the impact of changes to employer NICs. The Government have no direct role in funding parish and town councils.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the Government’s announcement of the £515 million NICs compensation package as part of the provisional local government finance settlement, but I am disappointed that they have confirmed that compensation to local government bodies will not extend to town, community and parish councils. Could she explain why it is fair that some elected bodies are given financial support and others are not?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I explained, the Government have no responsibility for funding town and parish councils. The Welsh Government’s budget is growing in real terms in 2025-26. In fact, the settlement is the largest in real terms for any Welsh Government since devolution. Currently, the Welsh Government also receive an additional 5% transitional factor as part of the Barnett formula, while they are funded above their independently assessed relative need compared to England to 115%. If they wish to provide further support to town and parish councils, they are able to do so.

Strategic Highways Company (Name Change and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and Baroness Humphreys

Monday 5th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, on the face of it, this secondary legislation is simple, reflecting a name change that took place in 2021, when Highways England Company Ltd became National Highways Ltd. It is a simple change, but one that raises a number of questions, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has raised. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions as well.

I thank the Minister for providing an updated Explanatory Memorandum in response to the issues raised in the 38th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The updated EM attempts to explain the rationale behind the name change and gives details of the costs incurred, both of which are welcome, although the rationale for the name change is rather weak.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee encourages us to take the opportunity to ask the Minister to explain the choice of the new name, which it finds unclear

“as the ‘National Highways’ remit does not extend to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland”.

It is all very confusing, as the other great piece of national infrastructure, National Rail, does refer to England, Scotland and Wales. It leaves me and my tiny mind feeling rather confused.

I am concerned about the second sentence in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“The strategic road network plays a key role by connecting England’s regions and providing the most heavily used cross-border routes between England, Scotland and Wales. The name signalled a new era for the company and recognises the role it plays in ensuring national connectivity”.


I am looking for assurances from the Minister that National Highways will not claim responsibility for cross-border routes within Wales and that the responsibilities and powers of the Welsh Government will not be challenged.

I have two final short questions. First, given that the new name came into being in 2021, why has it taken so long for this SI to come before Parliament? Secondly, I recognise that we are dealing with a fait accompli and that there is nothing we can do about the SI, but what would have been wrong with calling the new organisation National Highways England? At least that would have made it clear that the body had responsibility for the nation of England, not the nation of the UK. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and noble Lord who have contributed to the debate, and to the Minister for her clear explanation, at least of the purpose of the regulations. On the face of it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, said, this is a fairly straightforward process of updating a number of pieces of legislation with the current name of National Highways, and we would not want to object to the statutory instrument from that point of view.

However, I pick up on some of the questions that have been asked previously but on which I could not trace any detailed answer from Ministers in the other place or your Lordships’ House. First, my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the change from Highways England and set out some of the confusion that might arise because different descriptions are used in different pieces of legislation. In different countries of the UK, different names apply. That is very confusing. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, also referred to that. It seems blindingly obvious to me that National Highways England would have been a better name. She also referred to the rationale for the change being rather weak. I agreed with that when I read the explanation.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee suggested that the Minister may wish to explain the name, given that “national” is confusing for an organisation focused on only one nation of the UK. I hope the Minister will give us a full explanation so that we can all understand how it applies to different pieces of highways legislation that reflect different parts of the UK.

Secondly, it was my experience in local government that the new name of the agency is not commonly known, resulting in the term Highways England still being in very common usage. Do the Government intend to do anything further to communicate the change of name once the situation between the four nations has been clarified?

The regulations have the stated aim of future-proofing the legislation against any future name changes. Does the Minister have any plans to update other legislation to future-proof against potential name changes of other bodies? We have heard a couple of suggestions: we might have National Highways Wales or National Highways Scotland. Your Lordships will appreciate that I ask this question because we all know that name changes and subsequent rebranding come at considerable cost. The Minister referred to digital, legal, administrative and communication costs, and so on, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley also referred to them.

Lastly, I note that the Minister said that road traffic orders will not be changed. Presumably, this means that local authorities need have no concerns about any legal challenges that might arise as a result of the fact that the name of the agency has now changed. Those are my questions; I thank the Minister.