Primary Stock Exchange Listings

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question, and I pay tribute to his expertise in this area; I know it is something he is deeply passionate about. He speaks about the importance of scale-up in this country. For many years, we have been very good at start-up, but much less good at scale-up. That is something we are seeking to do. As I have already mentioned, the reforms and increased capital for the British Business Bank will be crucial to that. Throughout our work to develop the industrial strategies, we have seen that access to finance has been a central challenge for many companies. He talks about our pension reforms and the Mansion House compact. Those reforms aim to generate up to £50 billion of additional capital to help companies to start to scale up and for crucial funding at that stage of their life.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a senior partner of Cavendish plc, the largest nominated adviser to listed companies on the stock exchange. We asked our clients why they are going to America. They give us two reasons: the multiples are higher in America—so be it—and the net remuneration package. Both founders of Wise and many directors of AstraZeneca were born abroad. The non-dom rules are driving away entrepreneurs in droves. This is why many companies are choosing to list abroad. We know that Labour is going to change its policy on non-dom tax—it is not a question of if; it is a question of when. Can I implore the Minister to speak to Treasury to make it as soon as possible?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I commend the noble Lord for knowing more about government policy than I do. He talks about those companies listing abroad. It is interesting, just to look at some evidence, that IPOs on US exchanges show that non-US companies tend to perform much less well than US ones, suggesting that from a valuation perspective it is better for firms to list on their home market. In the last 10 years, of the 20 British companies that listed in the US, nine have already delisted, only four are trading above their IPO price and the rest are trading down on average by 80%.

Unpaid Tax

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. As part of the action we are taking to close the tax gap, HMRC is recruiting an additional 5,500 compliance officers by the end of the Parliament; 400 of them will work specifically on wealthy offshore risks. HMRC has also created a new team focused specifically on tackling offshore non-compliance cases and is expanding its counterfraud capability, targeting those who facilitate wealthy individuals hiding money offshore. In the report that my noble friend mentions, the National Audit Office recognises that this Government are scaling up compliance activity to tackle serious offshore non-compliance and have committed further funding to do so. Looking ahead, we will take further action to close the tax gap; we have published consultations on strengthening HMRC’s ability to act against tax advisers who facilitate non-compliance and to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance. Finally, my noble friend asked about timescales. We will set out further plans in the Budget and will shortly publish a road map setting out HMRC’s strategic ambitions and the transformation required to achieve them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response—heaven knows, after last week the Government will have to raise a hell of a lot of tax to compensate for the extra expense they are incurring. On offshore tax avoidance, he will be aware that 3 million parcels a week arrive in the UK from offshore suppliers containing goods below £135 in value and therefore exempt from VAT. It is estimated that roughly £1 billion of additional VAT—that is not even in the tax gap—could be recouped. A number of actors, including RAVAS, have ideas on how to cure this. Will the Minister agree to a meeting with the Treasury and HMRC, which keep batting us away, to discuss how we can stop this tax gap?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know that he has been in touch with my colleague the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and has discussed having a meeting. I am sure that he will be in touch in due course.

Social Care and Special Education Charities: Employer National Insurance Contributions

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think I can give a positive answer to the main thrust of the noble Baroness’s question. As she will know, and as I said already, the Government are making available £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities in 2025-26. We will set out future years’ allocations in the spending review on Wednesday. As she knows, the Government will provide support for departments and other public sector employers for the additional employer national insurance costs.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, in Committee on the national insurance Bill we put an amendment down to exempt hospices specifically from national insurance increases. The CEO of Thames Hospice, to which I declare I am a donor, said that, as a result of the proposed changes, more people will die in pain and agony than would otherwise need to be the case. What assessment have the Government made of the cost of these national insurance increases on hospices specifically, and what advice would he give to the chief executive of Thames Hospice?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, the Government recognise the vital role hospices play in supporting people at the end of their life and their families. The Government are determined to shift more healthcare into the community and ensure that patients and their families receive high-quality, personalised care in the most appropriate setting. Hospices will have a very big role to play in that shift. The Government are supporting the hospice sector with an additional £100 million for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million revenue to support children and young people’s hospices.

Tax: Changes

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the loss of tax revenue from wealthy individuals leaving the country following recent tax changes.

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

My Lords, the OBR has certified that the non-dom reforms the Government have implemented will raise £33.8 billion in total revenue over the five-year forecast period. That figure accounts for some non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime choosing to leave the UK in response to these reforms. The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the new regime is internationally competitive and focused on attracting the best talent and investment to the UK.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The ideologically driven decision to include overseas assets in IHT for both non-doms and former non-doms is described in the national press as Rachel Reeves’s biggest mistake. Despite what the OBR says, capital gains tax receipts have fallen by 10% and, as we heard on Friday, the national debt is ballooning. Does the Minister agree with me that, given that 30% of income tax receipts come from 1% of taxpayers and they are leaving in droves, it is a question not of whether this policy is reversed but of when? It is time to put country before party.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not agree with the substantive bulk of the noble Lord’s question. He mentions the capital gains tax figures. The latest outturn data for capital gains tax relates mainly to capital gains tax liabilities in the 2023-24 tax year, so pre-dates the announcement of non-dom reforms by the previous Government and this one. This Government’s tax reforms to the non-dom regime and to capital gains tax keep the UK an attractive place to live and to invest, while ensuring that everyone who is a long-term resident pays their taxes here, helping to fairly fund our public services. The UK’s main rate of capital gains tax is lower than in any other European G7 country, as is our corporate tax rate, and our new residence-based regime is simpler and more attractive to new arrivals than the non-dom regime it replaces.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments in this group; I will speak briefly on them. Like many Members of your Lordships’ House, I share the general scepticism—indeed, hostility—towards the direction of travel of this legislation. Like others, I believe that, if the Government’s central mission is around economic growth as the stimulant, both with respect to the broader economy and from the point of view of public finances, this ultimately takes us very much in the wrong direction.

I appreciate, however, that that wider message is not what is before us today. The amendments before us are more nuanced and modest in their nature. They have been quite cleverly drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and others, and are designed not to make a direct challenge to the financial authority of the House of Commons. It is disappointing that the Commons took that approach but, nevertheless, these are respectful and well-drafted amendments that try to deal with this issue. Specifically, the Minister mentioned that one of the key considerations and intentions of this Government is the reform and protection of public services. That stated aim, at least, is one that I think all of us in this House would share.

Central to that is the provision of support for the National Health Service, to ensure that the necessary reforms take place to save it from the crisis in which it has been left. While many pieces in that jigsaw will need to be fitted in, central to any chance we have of improving the National Health Service will be dealing with social care. The two are inextricably linked. In particular, we will need to turbocharge the provisions that can be made on social care and also—as is contained within the amendment—on a range of related topics, from dentistry to pharmacies, so that the pressure can be taken off the front-line services of the NHS, including hospitals.

It is critical, both from a health perspective and an economy perspective, that we ensure the swiftest possible turnarounds in hospital stays. Too many people in our society are bed-blocking. That is not a choice that they wish to make and it is detrimental to our health service, to those individuals and to the economy. Therefore, it strikes me that we should be looking to take all measures that can possibly improve social care and improve support for hospital provision.

It seems to me that the proposed national insurance changes would be deeply detrimental to those sectors. Indeed, we have had warning after warning from people in those sectors about the impact that it will have. Therefore, I believe that these modest amendments at least an attempt to redress that. In their wisdom, the Government will tell us that they believe the change will simply be beneficial; it will bring in additional revenue without in any way damaging the social care system. Perhaps the wisdom of the Government is greater than that of many of us in this House. Therefore, we are not seeking to impose our views but seeking a much more modest proposition, which simply says: let us keep this under review and let us have the opportunity for the Government—should they be proved wrong on this issue—to make a swift intervention. That seems eminently sensible.

Similarly, with the amendment on small businesses—they will be the fuel of our economy and in many ways critical aspects which will impact on growth—the opportunity is there not to challenge the tax rises directly but to ensure that intervention can take place.

On the final amendment, if we are making legislation, ultimately it should be evidence-based, and that means not simply at the time when we are making it. What is the direct impact? To have a range of reviews across a number of sectors to see whether intervention is then needed seems to be an eminently sensible approach.

I suspect that, in an ideal world, many of us would have liked the amendments before us today to have gone much further, but they seem modest and nuanced in their nature and an attempt at an olive branch to the opposition that came from the House of Commons, so I urge the Government to take a common-sense approach and adopt these amendments rather than forcing us into a Division on them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I have spoken in all other stages of this Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us of the rationale for it, which is the alleged £22 billion black hole which no independent economist can find. The OBR can find £9 billion—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

No, no independent economist. I would be grateful if noble Lords opposite would stand up and identify an independent economist who agrees with the £22 billion black hole—I will take interventions anytime.

When they came into office, this Government were left with the United Kingdom having the fastest growth in the G7. What happened after that was the Chancellor came in and talked down the economy dramatically. Legislation came in against non-doms and, as a result, 10,000 non-doms—equivalent to 0.5 million taxpayers—left the country. The Employment Rights Bill is raising its ugly head, frightening people, and the IHT effect on BPR and APR has been dramatic. There is a poll out today by Family Business UK of 4,200 family companies, and they have all said they will be cutting back on recruitment. This is what is facing our economy. It led to the shrinkage in GDP in January and it has now led to the emergency Budget, none of which will be helped by these NI increases at all.

As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has said, we have had cries of anguish from the third sector. The CEO of Thames Hospice has said that people will die in greater pain and anguish as a result of the effect of the NI changes on employment in hospices. Will the Labour Party Members vote, with head high, in the Lobbies to support this? Will they do so in the Commons? This Government will be constantly reminded of the damage they are doing to the social care sector, to the hospices sector, and indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said, to the small businesses sector. It is not too late. I hope noble Lords will think very carefully about how they vote this afternoon.

Closed-Ended Investment Companies: Cost Disclosure

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise the issues that the noble Lord raises. The Government’s view is that now that they have temporarily removed investment trusts from cost disclosure requirements, implementation is a matter for the industry. I recognise that there are some frustrations among the sector, but we believe that operationalising this legislation is a matter for the industry and the regulator.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as an investor in investment trusts and as a senior partner at Cavendish, which has written in to the consultations. It is quite clear that investment trusts offer members of the public the opportunity to invest in assets that would not otherwise be available to them and should be encouraged. The problem is that the rules were set in Brussels, and Europe does not have investment trusts. We now have the opportunity to do something bespoke and specific for us. Does the Minister agree that that will not be possible with the current structure that we have with the FCA and that it is now time that the FCA and, for that matter, FOS, were brought within government so that the situation as my noble friend Lord Forsyth explained it can be resolved?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think I can agree with the second part of the noble Lord’s question, but I absolutely agree that these vehicles do not exist in Europe and do exist in this country, which is exactly why the Government legislated to reform retail disclosure in the way that they did so that it is fairer, more proportionate and more suited for UK markets.

Finance Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I am really pleased to have a chance to make a short contribution to this debate on the Finance Bill and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, on her most eloquent and enjoyable maiden speech.

I have been the chairman of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House but we have not been invited to sit this year, which is a polite way of saying that we feel we have been discarded unceremoniously. I am really sorry that we have not been invited to prepare a report on the Finance Bill in the normal way. If we had, one of the areas I would have liked us to look at in depth is the OECD pillar 2 in the Finance Bill. As the Minister will recall, I have raised pillar 1 and pillar 2 a number of times in this House and in fact first raised them in 2013.

We are all pleased to see progress in this Finance Bill in Clause 19 and Schedule 4, building on the work of previous Conservative Administrations. It is disappointing to see that in respect of pillar 1, the digital services tax raised only £678 million in 2023-24. Does the Minister agree that this is too low? As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has mentioned, if the Government are keen to raise revenue, enhancing DST would be supported by many in both Houses, so it would be interesting to know what he might be thinking about that.

However, I accept that we are of course now worried by President Trump’s views on pillars 1 and 2. As the Treasury plans to raise some £2.8 billion from pillar 2, it would be interesting to know what plans the Government have to protect this figure given that Trump has said a list of protective measures will be drawn up by the United States.

I remind the House of my membership of the Chartered Institute of Taxation—one of the dreaded tax advisers that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, spoke about—and I am sure Ministers are aware of its observations on the transitional safe harbour routes. It called the top-up taxes of pillar 2 “complicated and burdensome”, so will there be further clarity on these rules? It would be good to hear that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, mentioned, the changes to tax of people formerly called non-doms have, unfortunately, proven to be a bit of a disaster. The temporary repatriation facility will have no material effect and in 2024, on a net basis, more than 10,000 millionaires left the UK, more than double the 2023 figure. That equates to over 500,000 average taxpayers, as each of them would have paid at least £400,000 in income tax alone last year.

A survey by Oxford Economics estimates that two-thirds of those remaining are thinking of leaving simply due to the tax changes and even the OBR estimates that 15% to 25% of the remaining non-doms may well leave. I cannot believe that the Chancellor’s estimates of raising £13 billion over five years from such people is right; in fact, it has been calculated that it will cost £1 billion, not make £13 billion. Has the Minister had a chance to revise the £13 billion in view of the hard fact that people are leaving the UK in much greater numbers than anticipated? The Minister may now be aware of serious concerns about deficiencies in the legislation regarding so-called double remittances. This needs to be urgently addressed in future Finance Bills.

It seems appropriate to mention national insurance, particularly given PMQs earlier today, where I think the Prime Minister was embarrassed to have to admit that the amendment that we tabled in respect of hospices had not been accepted in this House and has gone to the other place.

I am grateful to the Minister for once again mentioning the £22 billion. He mentioned “line by line”. He mentioned the OBR’s £9 billion, although he did not mention the £13 billion that no one can find. I cannot find one economic commentator who agrees with the Government, and he makes no mention of the underprovisions that always exist every year, which have been ignored by this Government.

Much of the “black hole” has been created by the Government folding to their bosses in the unions and paying public sector wages with no productivity gains, which is a disaster if you want growth as the NHS is included in the growth statistics. Once again, we have to question those claims. Indeed, on statements of economic competence, the last Labour Administration left government with the financial crisis and, of course, left a note apologising that there was no money left in the kitty. Let us not forget that.

So, as a result, private businesses are going to suffer now as resources are sucked out of them unnecessarily. The first few months of the new Government have been a disaster fiscally, with the unfortunate announcement on the winter fuel payment, the virtual riots on the streets by our farmers—normally the backbone of our society—and charities, social care homes and even hospices openly hostile to the Government.

Let us try to create a better environment for fiscal changes. It is clear that the Treasury has persuaded Ministers to apply taxes which previous Chancellors have wisely resisted. I hope they learn from this and chose to consult more widely before the imposition of new taxes.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I take full responsibility for the misdrafting of the original amendment, and for not being sensitive to the legal differences between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the others who have supported him, and those in Scotland who were so concerned about what might happen to the care services there that they wanted to make sure that the language was reasonably perfected.

I am delighted to accept that amendment, but I am also very grateful that people came forward. It is good to know that we are sending something to the other place that is not holed beneath the waterline; I appreciate that. I also appreciate the vote that came in this House, which is not disrupted at all by this amendment, as people were very clear that they intended it to apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

I hope that I will be in a position to thank the Government for accepting this tidying-up amendment, understanding the spirit both in which it was offered and in which the previous debate took place.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I want to raise an objection to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which accused us of making amendments to spray public funding around. We made a number of suggestions as to how government could raise revenue in other ways, and government does flex itself, as we have seen in the increasing defence expenditure and reduction in overseas aid, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do outside of a Budget.

When the chief executive of a hospice says publicly that, as a result of this legislation, people may die in greater pain and agony than would otherwise be the case, I think it is perfectly reasonable for this to be drawn to your Lordships’ attention and for amendments to be discussed.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am concluding for the Opposition on this amendment. We are content with the amendment, which we see as a technical, tidying-up amendment.

Economic Growth: Public Spending

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect on economic growth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments before the Budget on the “public spending inheritance” and of the consequent rise in employer National Insurance contributions.

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

My Lords, it was this Government’s duty in the Budget last year to fix the foundations of the economy and repair the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We have always been clear that there are costs to responsibility; the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions will have consequences for businesses and beyond, but the costs of irresponsibility for the economy and working people would have been far greater. We are, of course, not satisfied with the growth rate. That is why we are going further and faster on economic growth, including through the measures announced in the Chancellor’s recent growth speech.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it seems the Government have no real idea of the damage the Chancellor has caused to the economy with her negativity and the ideological jobs tax. Perhaps they will listen to the CBI, which reports that expectations in the private sector are now the lowest in over two years, and private sector activity fell again in the three months to January. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation survey points to the most widespread weakening in demand for staff since the height of Covid in August 2020. The CEO said, somewhat damningly, that government actions are acting as “brakes on progress”. When will the Minister acknowledge that the Budget for growth and stability has produced the diametrically opposite result? If the Government are ideologically driven to extract cash from the private sector, there are much more business-efficient and tax-friendly ways of so doing.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, but his contention seems to be that we were wrong to be honest about the challenges in the public finances, and should instead have maintained the previous Government’s cover-up. He seems to be saying that we were wrong to deal with those challenges, and should instead have maintained the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Let me be clear: those are exactly the two ingredients—hiding from scrutiny and hiding from reality—at the heart of the Liz Truss mini-Budget, and we saw how that ended. If that is the noble Lord’s recommendation, I fundamentally disagree with him. We were right to restore honesty and transparency to the public finances, and we were right to repair them, which is why we took the difficult decisions that we did.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham, and to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. These amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they represent a critical step in recognising and supporting the social care sector, which remains indispensable to our society.

Amendment 47 proposes an increase in the employment allowance available to employers in the social care sector, raising it from £10,500 to £20,000 per tax year. This increase is of profound importance. Our social care providers are grappling with rising operational costs, staffing challenges and the ever-present need to deliver high-quality care to some of our most vulnerable citizens. By enhancing the employment allowance, we are providing smaller employers with essential financial relief that will help to sustain their operations in the light of the brutal national insurance increases, retain skilled and valuable staff and invest in the quality improvements that our social care users so desperately need.

For too long, the funding constraints on social care providers have meant that many have had to make painful compromises, such as reducing staff numbers, cutting back on training or deferring vital infrastructure improvements. These compromises ultimately diminish the quality of care provided and place additional strain on an already overstretched system. Increasing the allowance would acknowledge that social care is not a peripheral service, but a core pillar of our public support system, deserving of the same robust backing as the NHS, which is being compensated for the additional NICs charges.

Moreover, this amendment recognises the unique cost structures within the social care sector. Unlike other industries, social care providers face significant regulatory and operational burdens. They must meet stringent care standards, invest in specialised training and often operate in environments where margins are exceptionally thin. They are the backbone of a sector that touches so many lives. The Local Government Association estimates that the NICs charges create £1.77 billion in additional costs for councils, with £637 million for directly employed staff and £1.13 billion through indirect costs, via commissioned providers, including £628 million for adult social care alone. These are big figures.

There is also an important symbolic dimension to these amendments. By focusing on the social care sector, we are sending a clear message that the care of our elderly, our disabled and our most vulnerable is a national priority. This sector has often been on the back foot, underfunded and overlooked. Today we are recognising its importance and taking concrete steps to bolster it. In doing so, we honour the dedication of countless social care workers who deliver care with compassion, often under extremely challenging circumstances.

In conclusion, these amendments will provide a much-needed boost to the employment allowance for social care providers and introduce a mechanism of accountability that will ensure that the measures are delivering the intended benefits. They are a testament to our commitment to support a sector that is foundational in the well-being of our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these amendments, recognising that those struggling with disabilities and an ever-ageing community, partly thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, need our help. We need to invest in a stronger, fairer and more caring society.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 47 and my own Amendment 65, which is yet another request for an impact assessment. I raised the issues that small businesses and charities will have at our last session, but I shall focus on the social care sector, for some of the reasons that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has explained. This sector faces particular challenges, and to apply a one-size-fits-all to every employer in the UK is in this instance simply heartless and smacks of a policy rushed through without proper consideration of the particular issues in the sector.

The recent Budget, while providing additional funding to social care, does not go far enough to meet the needs of a sector facing increased costs from the rising national living wage and employers’ NI contributions. There is the £600 million grant, which we assume is to be shared between adult and children’s social care, but it is far from sufficient to address the estimated £3.7 billion increase in costs facing providers due to the changes announced in the Budget, which represent the 10.6% increase in pay from April 2025.

We know of course that councils will be expected to fill much of this gap through council tax precepts and local revenue, but, even with the £600 million grant, there is still a £1.3 billion shortfall that local authorities have. That figure relates only to the basic costs of providing care, with no consideration of inflation, the resources required to address ongoing workforce challenges, or the increased capacity, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned, of a growing ageing population. Because of this, there are reasons to believe that the estimates of a £2.24 billion gap for older person residential care is a conservative figure. If this is added to the homecare deficit, reported to be £1.76 billion, and the unquantified gap for working-age adults, the total gap between the average fee paid by local authorities and the actual costs of providing care could be significantly higher than the £4 billion.

I appreciate that these figures are so large that it is possibly difficult to take them all in and relate to them. If I may, I shall look on a micro basis at organisations I happen to know about personally. I am sure that each of us has a connection with such an organisation locally. In my case, I have connections with Jewish Care, which is Anglo-Jewry’s leading health and social care charity for the Jewish community in London and the south-east. It touches the lives of 12,000 people every week—including, of course, Holocaust survivors.

Jewish Care operates nine care homes, which provide a range of services, including fabulous residential care and also dementia care, mental health care and nursing care. It manages four retirement living schemes and an assisted living scheme, nine community centres and three centres for people living with dementia. My interest is that I was a trustee of Jewish Care, and I am still a proud fundraiser for it. I have been a patron for more than 25 years. I am grateful to Jewish Care for sharing with me its concerns, which reflect those of the whole industry.

In context, Jewish Care raises some £20 million in revenue donations—voluntary gifts. The total increase in workforce costs as a result of this Budget is estimated by Jewish Care at £1.1 million. The increase in the percentage for NICs from 13.8% to 15% increases the workforce costs by £400,000 and the lowering of the threshold, which we all know about, results in a further £700,000—hence £1.1 million.

Of course, it is disproportionately affected because it is a large employer with very many part-time staff. The immediate impact is that carers’ salaries will not be raised, as would otherwise have been the case. It will also force the charity to make choices about how care homes are operated and, just as importantly, to divert investments in other community-focused services. One specific example is that, until the announcement of the NI increases, it was planning to open a much-needed dementia day centre. It was all planned and ready to go, but these additional costs have forced Jewish Care to put that on hold. This is real damage that the Government are causing to people’s lives, and it is particularly poignant because both Wes Streeting and the Prime Minister proclaimed themselves, as recently as last June, just before the election, to be huge supporters of this charity and its objectives.