National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Leigh of Hurley

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

It may be 10 minutes; I will sit down and then I will get up and make my speech again, if the noble Baroness likes. It is advisory.

There are energy costs that people are faced with, the impact of increasing regulatory burdens and the fact that people are just giving up. The lack of an impact statement, which seems to be becoming a habit for this Government, is a major criticism. They have already got into difficulty due to not doing this. They have had to revise the proposals they put forward for non-doms because they suddenly discovered that the impact of their policy would actually reduce revenue, so they had to change it. Had they done a proper impact statement, they would never have made that mistake—and there are other examples.

So these amendments are important, and I hope the Minister will take these arguments on board and think again.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise; I was not in the country to be present during Second Reading, although I did have the chance to discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, while we were supporting a much smaller economy than our own.

I support all the amendments in this group. I will speak later on the impact on the charities sector, in particular on social care homes, but I will concentrate now on the effect on business, in particular small business.

Small business is, of course, notoriously difficult to determine. There are all sorts of definitions of small business all over the legislation. The definitions that have been proposed are perfectly adequate. Companies House calls businesses small if their revenue is less than £10.2 million and they have fewer than 50 employees, and adds some balance sheet footing restrictions. Micro companies, however, are those that make less than £632,000.

One of the problems with the amendments—that can, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, be revised—is how the Government will work out which companies are eligible for this reduction. As we know from our work on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, Companies House does not require disclosure of revenue for these small companies, particularly if the balance sheet and employee numbers are lower. The numbers are there in HMRC but, as we have discovered, HMRC will not release them. This could of course be self-selecting.

I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell— I say this as a qualified tax accountant who is always happy to sharpen his pencil—that there will be any money in this for tax accountants trying to find wiggle room. These proposals are the simplest and most effective way to reduce costs for small companies. The proposal that the noble Lord suggests—I think I quote him—of “subsidies or benefits” is much more complicated and dangerous. I accept that research and development tax credits do a good job, but subsidies and benefits for small companies in place of reducing national insurance would be a far greater administrative burden, in my opinion.

These amendments directly affect small businesses. As we have heard from a number of people, they will suffer because higher employment costs lead to lower hiring capacity and potential job costs. This will lead to lower wages, which will lower morale and lead to higher wages, with pressure on employers. It leads to less investment and growth. The inevitable lower profits, which I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth indicated, means that covenants are at risk, which is a real issue for small businesses because banks are not sympathetic to this issue.

I too declare an interest: like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I started a business. I had one partner and one assistant, and I too had sleepless nights about how we were going to survive and pay the payroll. We have 220 employees now, but my experience makes me very concerned for the survival of small companies. It has to be said that, although the Government Front Bench in the other place have many skills, abilities and experiences, none of them has started a small business. None of them knows and understands the pressures the small business men and women face. The risk of starting a business means that they have typically put up money secured on their home and left gainful employment so to do.

I urge the Front Bench here to listen to those who have been through that and adopt the sensible suggestion to conduct a proper assessment of the implications of what has been proposed. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, there are clearly economic challenges, but there are other ways of sorting them. The best, in my opinion, is to think about the 9 million people who are economically inactive. Steps taken to get the economically inactive into employment will dramatically improve the economy, whereas constantly justifying everything by the infamous £22 billion black hole does not lead to a sensible discussion.

Andy Haldane said that the black hole event was

“unnecessary and probably unhelpful economically”.

The aforementioned OBR has said that

“it was unable to confirm chancellor Rachel Reeves’ claim that she inherited a £22bn ‘black hole’ in the public finances from the previous administration”.

To be fair, the Chancellor’s claim that the Treasury had not been transparent about the pressures on the public finances resonates, but the chair of the OBE himself said that he

“could not endorse the £22bn ‘black hole’ figure specifically”.

Mr Hughes told a press conference a few months after the Budget that it was simply “impossible to say”.

I refer your Lordships to an article in the Financial Times in which Mr Hughes “noted that other measures” the Chancellor

“had included in her estimate of the £22bn ‘black hole’”

included

“her own £9.4bn uplift to public sector pay”

without any productivity gains. The article went on to say that, sadly,

“the Treasury has failed to fully explain how it arrived at the £22bn number”—

I know that explanations have been given, but I do not think that they are satisfactory—

“declining to answer a Financial Times freedom of information request on the subject”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am following what my noble friend is saying carefully. He mentioned the number of people who are apparently economically inactive, as well as the great pressure that there is on low-margin hospitality businesses. What does he think is the likelihood of this measure resulting in larger numbers of people working in the black economy and the Government getting no tax receipts whatever? My noble friend will remember, from being on the Economic Affairs Select Committee’s Finance Bill Sub-Committee, the horrors that occurred with the loan charge: employers were asking people to be treated as if they were self-employed through agencies, which resulted in people getting enormous, life-changing bills. To what extent does my noble friend think that this imposition of costs will actually create all of these problems, to the disadvantage of the Treasury and many other people?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment, because it is clearly the case. Every single one of my corporate clients has told me that they have had to reforecast and rebudget with lower profit. Every single one has said that they are going to take steps to shave that back, and that those steps will include lowering their employment bill: they will either sack people, reduce hours or not recruit. Will that drive people into the so-called black economy? I cannot honestly answer that because I do not know, but the point is that none of us knows. This is why an impact assessment is so desperately needed before dangerous steps are taken to pressurise British business into—

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Leigh of Hurley

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth has unravelled a puzzle. I, too, am disappointed by what has happened. I assumed that when the Conservative Party put in its manifesto the commitment to move from opt-out to opt-in, it thought it was the right thing to do. When it appeared in the Bill, I thought it was the right thing to do. I thought the party thought it was the right policy, and I think it was the right policy.

I have heard the word “compromise” used today. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, used it several times. I understand that we are at the end of the Session. I understand the need for compromise, concession and deals. But this is none of these things. This is the abandonment of a Conservative manifesto pledge, and we should say that. I notice that my honourable friend in the other place, Mr Nick Boles, turned what was a manifesto commitment into what he called a suggestion in the manifesto. It was not a suggestion; it was a promise. When we debated this last time, my noble friend the Minister said it was right for Governments to honour their commitments.

Of course I accept the decision of the other place. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has given his explanation of why this manifesto commitment was abandoned. I say only that junior Ministers in this Government, who are extremely able and good, often have a very hard task.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak for long because we have discussed this at length. I think we have all reached agreement as to why, as my noble friend Lord Sherbourne said, we are going from opt-out to opt-in. We have been through some people’s perception that there has been legislation in the past that has affected political disclosure, if not donations, and have discussed PPERA. But we have now reached a point where we have something before us. This time, unlike on previous occasions, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on where we are.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for crystallising my mind: clearly I am not an influential Conservative Peer because my suggestions have not been adopted.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend is extremely influential. It was Mr Boles who did not think to include him.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I am grateful for that clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, has explained how Ministers approach these problems. Sadly, again, I have never had the honour of being a Minister. That is most unlikely. I come from more of a business background and in business when one wants to get things done invariably there has to be an element of compromise. Like the rest of the House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on achieving a compromise. How and why it was achieved we will perhaps never know but it has been achieved. We will end up with an opt-in. It will take longer than other people thought appropriate but it will happen. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, of the publication of the opt-in levels achieved is excellent and to be welcomed. On all those grounds, I welcome these amendments.

Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Leigh of Hurley

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the report and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the other noble Lords who served on the committee. We had a good discussion on Clauses 10 and 11 in Committee, which I think it is generally recognised were instigated by the Conservative Party manifesto. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and other noble Lords have pointed out, perhaps it did not contain the most elegant of wording, but it did none the less convey the message. As a humble treasurer of the party, I did not get involved in writing the manifesto, so cannot claim any credit for that.

The important point about Clauses 10 and 11 is that they are not seeking to prohibit donations to political parties by trade unions but rather seek transparency and ensure that those who wish to donate to a political fund, first, appreciate that this is the home for their money; and, secondly, understand how that money is spent. Those present in Committee will recall the Populus survey from which I quoted, which found that 30% of one union’s members thought that they had opted out of contributing to the political fund and a further third did not know if they had opted out or not. Nearly two-thirds of the members of this union who were polled thought that unions could do more to advance their members’ interests by using the money elsewhere than for political donations to Labour. Of course, a substantial proportion of members of this union and other unions support other political parties, but donations are focused exclusively on the Labour Party.

The report makes clear that it should be a requirement for all members joining a union with a political fund to be asked, on the membership form, to make an active choice to contribute, or not, to that fund. Like the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, who said it very elegantly, I cannot really see any argument against that. Indeed, I served on the Etherington committee, which made the point, in respect of charities, that there has to be an active opt-in before donations are made to avoid it being classified as aggressive fundraising. The current situation is that every 10 years a ballot is opened up for members to approve the continuation of opt-out arrangements. However, we have seen one union which, despite leaving the ballot open for three weeks—one would have thought a proper ballot would take just a day—achieved only an 18% turnout.

Accordingly, it seems to me that the only real issue for Members of this House to decide is whether to implement the opt-in requirements immediately or over a period of time. It would of course be very helpful if, at this point, the unions could enter into negotiations with the Government to reach an agreement on this, and perhaps my noble friend will explain whether that is happening. However, in the absence of any such negotiations, I would find it somewhat extraordinary if the opt-in does not commence for all existing union members, albeit phased in over a year or maybe two. I would not accept that a cross-party consensus on the general and much wider subject of political funding is necessary to implement this one particular aspect relating to trade union behaviour. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised that others think otherwise.

It should be borne in mind that, while the Conservative Party manifesto specifically called for a cross-party consensus on political funding, the Labour Party manifesto was explicit in its determination to impose a cap on political donations. There is no mention of consensus and no mention of agreement; simply that a cap will be put on political donations. Accordingly, if Labour had won the election in 2015, it would either have had to break a manifesto commitment or it would right now be implementing a very dramatic and severe change to party funding. It is clear to me that the Government are not proposing to do that but are simply trying to ensure transparency for those who wish to donate. The debate on the ethics of the state imposing a limit on a citizen’s free will to give their money to a political party of their choice is not for this occasion.

The discussions we are having about this situation must be pretty similar to those when PPERA was brought in in 2000 under the Labour Government. That required private, public and listed companies—the three can be different—to seek approval from members of the company in general meetings before political donations above quite a modest sum were made. Subsequently, the Companies Act required full disclosure of such donations. Both of those are now recognised as steps forward and I welcome them as being appropriate. The actual figures, since some noble Lords have questioned this, are that since 2010, declared donations from listed companies to the Conservative Party have been well short of £1 million. In the same period, well over £50 million has been raised, so the numbers speak for themselves.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The point that I made, which I think the noble Lord is referring to, was not about the numbers or the amounts. I was responding to my noble friend’s point when he argued that it was immoral for people with money to be contributing to a political party when they did not support it. That applies in the case of some shareholders who may not support the Conservative Party. I am not against that; I was simply arguing that it was wrong to make a moral case which would apply to company donations. The extent of the donations—their number and volume—has nothing whatever to do with the principle. We are not discussing the price here; we are talking about the principle.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I take the point, but the principle I am trying to explain is that a listed company has to have a general motion at a meeting where all shareholders have the right to vote. As a result, such listed companies have dramatically reduced their donations. Private and public companies also have to have shareholder approval.

I would agree with noble Lords who point out, in respect of Clause 11, that £2,000 is a very low level and may not be practicable. I would certainly not want to see unnecessary administrative expense for the unions in the enforcement of these new requirements.

Finally, I believe that further clarification is required on Clause 11. I note the Certification Officer will have to ensure that unions identify moneys spent under Section 72(1) of the 1992 Act, but there is confusion as to whether payments which are not within Section 72(1) should be similarly identified. For example, there are donations that can properly be described, in layman’s terms, as political but are not necessarily made through or to a political party. For example, payments by unions to CND and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel made through the fund are not disclosed as such. I would argue that many members of unions would be horrified to find that that is how their money has been spent.

I would hope that a government amendment would clarify this point. I understand that it might be covered by case law, but I agree with paragraph 107 of the report, which states that the current level of reporting for political fund expenditure is insufficient.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Leigh of Hurley

Thursday 25th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I approach this from a slightly different angle. I looked at the Bill for the first time with a particular interest in Clauses 10 and 11 and learned about check-off only from reading Clause 14 later. Frankly, I was surprised to see check-off still taking place, as it does not sit comfortably with many people. My noble friend Lord Balfe’s story of its history is very illuminating and extremely interesting; it explains to us why it came about, as opposed to the cash collection that predated it. Clearly, no one starting today would use a check-off system; the way everyone is moving is towards direct debit.

I have spent time trying to understand why check-off is not appropriate. One reason I discovered is that apparently in 1998 legislation came out that did not require changes in the amount paid under check-off to receive notice—whereas, of course, direct debit under the direct debit guarantee requires 10 days’ notice. So people are assured that any change to the amount paid by direct debit gets 10 days’ notice. It seems to me that unions are moving in the direction of direct debit. The Public and Commercial Services Union briefed its members on that subject, stating in its own material:

“Trade unions in general are no stranger to Direct Debit. POA members currently pay via this method after the previous Tory Government attacked their trade union rights and forced them to halt ‘check off’. The following Labour Government offered to reinstate it for them, but the POA chose to stick with Direct Debit. Many other large trade unions collect subscriptions in this way … such as Unite and GMB”.

Indeed, Unite offers incentives to people to move to direct debit; currently, it offers an incentive of £25.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Does my noble friend appreciate that some people on some very low incomes may not have bank accounts at all? If they do have bank accounts and set up direct debits, if there is not enough money in their account, they get an enormous bill from the bank because the direct debit has been disallowed. Therefore, they are very reluctant to sign up to direct debit.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I would be very interested to know the number of those people. Clearly, the numbers have changed dramatically since check-off was brought in, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, explained.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

Of course, exceptions can be made for a few hundred, if it is a few hundred, as with others. But it seems that direct debit is the direction of travel. I have nearly finished.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I have no idea what the numbers are, but it will be more than a few hundred—and it will be the people who will lose most if they do not have the backing of their union. I appreciate that they may not move in his social circle, but there are a lot of people like that.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I am not sure the noble Lord knows my particular social circle, but I took the figure of a few hundred from my noble friend Lord Cormack. As I said, I do not know the numbers and I do not think the noble Lord knows the numbers, but it would be interesting to have them presented to us.