National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I wish to make three quick points on this, the largest and probably most consequential, measure announced by the Chancellor in the Budget. My first point is very tentative, as it relates to the promises on taxation made by major parties prior to general elections. We are an unelected House, and I am deeply conscious of the peculiar pressures that political parties navigate to put across a message and compete with their opponents, but I think, wishfully perhaps, that greater restraint by parties on what they promise in the area of taxation would be appropriate since the House of Commons should have maximum freedom to pass a Finance Bill in our overall interests. I cannot be alone in thinking that placing such a burden on employer national insurance because of prior commitments ruling out other possible options is less than optimal and is already seemingly restraining economic growth.

My second point is that the Church of England agreed in 1976 to forgo the pre-existing arrangements whereby ministers of religion were treated as self-employed and embrace employer national insurance. The increases mandated by this Bill affect us as they affect others. The impact nationally for a full year, including clergy, is around £10 million, excluding large numbers of staff directly employed by parishes. For my diocese, the amount is around £390,000. Our principal income source for paying all stipend-related costs comes from voluntary parish giving, which is restricted, and we have still not heard from the Treasury whether it will extend the listed places of worship grant scheme which gives VAT refunds for listed church repairs.

Our parishes and dioceses sustain extensive social outreach as well as support for other charities. Do His Majesty’s Government appreciate the risk of staff and clergy reductions and the closure of buildings as a consequence of these measures in the worst-case scenario? This is mirrored, as I am sure the Minister has been advised and as we have already heard from other Members, by the impact on hospice care—much of which originated in Christian foundations—where the additional government help will not address the shortfall, despite the urgent need highlighted in the debate in another place on the assisted dying Bill.

However, my principal point has been raised in the briefing sent to a number of your Lordships. It is the impact of the proposed increases on the transport sector that is devoted specifically to serving children with special educational needs. As I understand it, local councils will be covered by proposed grants and compensation for the increases in this Bill where they directly employ staff in school transport. However, this does not extend to private industry, which employs some 100,000 people in this sector as drivers and passenger assistants. Many are part-time, whose employment will be caught by the provisions of this Bill for the first time. All are trained in serving special needs children and many are over 50 years of age. If contracts become unviable as a result of these measures and companies return them to local authorities, it will introduce a degree of turmoil into the lives of children, many of whom are on the autistic spectrum and for whom consistency is vital. Failure to maintain their education because of gaps in SEND transport will have serious consequences. I hope that the Minister will note this. It will further increase unemployment among the over-50s, whom we want to keep from the ranks of the economically inactive. Therefore, will the Minister consider two measures to ameliorate this situation? First, will he consider an emergency grant to local authorities for the fiscal year 2025-26 to address immediate and unplanned shortfalls arising from the increased costs to the SEND transport sector? Secondly, will he submit long-term funding provision for SEND transport services to phase 2 of the comprehensive spending review in order to extend support through to at least March 2028?

I do not intend to vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but I am grateful for the opportunity afforded at this Second Reading to express my concerns to the House about the impact of the Bill.

International Women’s Day

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Friday 8th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for securing this important debate on International Women’s Day. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock.

It is my belief that the kingdom of God is a place of radical inclusion in which all are welcome and all shall flourish. I speak as the duty bishop today, but I am mindful of the determined advocates on this Bench, which include the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who is attending the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations headquarters in New York.

I wish to make three points. As we have already heard, disparities are both global and very particular. According to Oxfam in 2020, the 22 richest men in the world have more wealth combined that all the women in Africa. In terms of the prevalence of global poverty, there is little difference between male and female children, but by their late teens the bias against young women is marked, and the gap peaks between the ages of 25 and 34.

First, the restoration of the UK’s ambition to spend 0.7% of its gross national income on overseas aid is something this Bench will continue to call for as an important means to address poverty and the imbalance affecting women and girls. The drop to 0.5% is exacerbated by the fact that domestic spending on refugees is allowed out of the aid budget. Whereas that was 3.2% of aid spending in 2016, by 2022 it was 29% of a budget otherwise intended for overseas aid.

Because the Church is an international entity, my office as a bishop often takes me abroad. In the case of Zimbabwe, with which I am familiar, women are disproportionately likely to be engaged in what is generally known as the informal economy. Their activities in small and micro-enterprises are hampered, according to the International Labour Organization, by the lack of access to, or sudden withdrawal of, credit. It is further curtailed by the scourge of corruption. It is difficult for such enterprises to survive, let alone grow. Aid programmes need to recognise the level at which such enterprises operate.

Secondly, I wish to bring to your Lordships’ attention the report of the archbishops’ Reimagining Care Commission, which identified the challenges experienced by unpaid carers. Other noble Lords have already talked about the caring issue. Research carried out last year by the Trades Union Congress found that women are seven times more likely to be out of work than men, owing to caring commitments—approximately 1.46 million women compared to about 230,000 men. In addition, Carers UK has found that 59% of people caring for someone with a disability are women. This is why it is so important to deliver on the commission’s proposed new deal for carers, which would include the opportunity for restorative breaks, increased financial support and more proactive advice.

Thirdly, I welcome the fact that the Women and Equalities Committee in the other place is conducting an inquiry into the impact on women of the rising cost of living. One of the points raised during oral evidence was the impact the pandemic and the cost of living crisis has had in the form of loss of jobs in the food, retail and hospitality sectors, which disproportionately employ women.

The reduction in national insurance contributions announced in the Budget is welcome, as is reform to child benefit. But we do not have in our political life a programme that will adequately tackle the challenge affecting millions of people struggling to make ends meet, let alone a vision for a full life. A wider programme for a balanced economy of secure, well-paid jobs with proper, regulated provisions for sick pay, leave and severance will benefit women. As the International Monetary Fund has stated, gender equality in turn boosts economic growth and stability.

I welcome this debate, and I hope it informs both the Government’s and the Opposition’s thinking.