National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 1, 16 and 19, which stand in my name and are supported by my noble friend Lady Kramer and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. These amendments address the implications of the national insurance contribution increase on independent contractors, small businesses and charitable providers of health and social care. The purpose of the amendments is clear: it is to exempt essential providers from the impact of the national insurance contribution hike.

Let us first consider what this increase means for a sector that forms the backbone of community healthcare: pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, hospices, GP surgeries and social care providers. These vital services, already under immense financial pressure, are struggling to meet the growing needs of our community. By imposing additional financial burdens, the Government risk undermining their ability to deliver care, with potentially devastating consequences for both providers and the people they serve.

Research by my party reveals some stark issues. For GP practices, the national insurance contribution will cost an estimated £125.5 million annually, equivalent to more than 2 million lost GP appointments each year. At a time when some people already endure long waiting times, this is simply unacceptable. In social care, the Nuffield Trust estimates an annual cost increase of £900 million due to the national insurance contribution increase, yet the recent Budget allocated only £600 million per annum to this sector, leaving a £300 million funding gap. This financial black hole threatens to push some providers towards collapse, reducing access to support keeping individuals independent and out of NHS care.

Hospices, which provide compassionate care to terminally ill individuals and their families, face an additional annual cost of £30 million. Some hospices will need to raise as much as an extra £200,000 each year. With many already heavily dependent on donations, such increases could force them to scale back services, lay off staff or even shut down some services entirely.

Community pharmacists, already operating on razor-thin margins, will incur an average additional cost of £12,000 per pharmacy annually. These pharmacists are vital lifelines for millions, yet the national insurance increase threatens the very survival of some of them.

Dentists facing rising costs could lead to higher patient charges and reduce access to NHS care. At a time when NHS dentistry care accessibility is already in crisis, the Government’s decision will exacerbate the problem, potentially creating further dental deserts across the country.

It is worth noting that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, have tabled Amendments 45 and 61, which are not in this group, proposing to increase the employer allowance for dental practices and requiring a review of the impact on certain sectors, including dentistry. However, the employment allowance, regardless of its level, is unavailable to dental practices that derive more than half their income from NHS services. Without a targeted exemption for the national insurance contribution hikes, NHS dental practices may be forced to reduce their NHS commitment to below 50% to qualify for support, with dire consequences for patient access. It is patients who will ultimately pay the price if the Government fail to act.

When we weaken our health and social care providers, the consequences are felt by individuals and communities. Fewer GPs, or fewer GP services, mean more crowded A&E departments. A reduction in social care providers leaves vulnerable individuals without support to live independently. Cuts to hospice services deprive families of the comfort and dignity they need during their most difficult moments.

The Government’s national insurance increase treats commissioned non-state providers of NHS and social care as though they were just ordinary businesses rather than essential public service partners. It fails to recognise their unique role in safeguarding the health and well-being of our nation. The economic rationale for this policy is flawed. By burdening health and social care providers with additional costs, the Government risk reducing services or, in extreme cases, forcing closures. This in turn will increase pressure on already overstretched NHS emergency services, leading to longer delays, worse health outcomes and higher long-term costs for the taxpayer.

This national insurance contribution increase on health and social care providers is penny-wise and pound-foolish policy-making at its worst. The solution is straightforward: reverse the national insurance contribution increase for health and social care providers that are commissioned by the state. This is not just a financial necessity; it is a moral imperative. These providers are already planning staff redundancies, service reductions and potential closures. They need certainty that their funding will be adequate from April, and fully funded, and that it will cover the additional costs. It would be deeply disingenuous for Ministers to suggest that the providers can absorb these costs or deal with the uncertainty if the Minister cannot guarantee that they will be funded. They will have significant effects on the ability of these providers to provide business continuity.

The Treasury may conduct abstract modelling, but the reality on the ground is stark. Front-line health and social care providers are directly affected and making plans now. These service providers are making plans today to reduce staff numbers and reduce access to services. The thousands of small businesses, independent contractors and charities need certainty that the money will be there from April and fully funded. Hollow and shallow words to the effect that this is all part of the normal contract negotiation, or part of the wash-up of next year’s funding settlement, will not stop the notices of reduced hours or redundancies going out. It will not stop the changes in opening hours or reduced access to services that are now being implemented.

We need to ask: why the two-tier system? If the direct state providers of NHS care that provide services can be treated in a different way—in that, where normally they would be told it is part of a contract negotiation, they have been told with certainty that this provision will be funded—why not provide the same certainty now for non-state providers? After all, they treat the same people and patients, providing care and support in our community.

The cost of exempting these providers can and should be through a fairer taxation system. My party has proposed raising the money required by reforming taxes on large, profitable corporations, particularly in the technology, financial and gambling sectors. For example, a modest increase in the digital services tax would generate significant revenue while not placing essential services at risk. The national insurance hike that the Government are proposing undermines the very providers who care for our sick and elderly and our most vulnerable. If implemented, they will jeopardise community health and social care and endanger the futures of countless essential services.

The Government have the power to change course. By reversing the national insurance increase for these vital providers and adopting a fairer, more sustainable approach to raising revenue, they can protect the thousands of small businesses, independent contractors and charities that safeguard our nation’s health and well-being. I urge the Government to act now and I beg to move.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Over 30 years ago, as an MP I went to see my predecessor, complaining that Governments do not understand small businesses. At that time there was a Conservative Government, who did some things to rectify that position. Ten years ago, the family business, of which I was the chairman, closed. I am grateful that I closed it when I did; we did not have to put up with Covid, Brexit or this type of thing.

I am saying this because I am not sure that Governments understand small businesses. The pharmacies, dentists and GPs we are talking about here are small businesses. I have always described the Treasury as being like your parents, who do not let you have the things that you want because they say you cannot afford them, but the damage that it could do with this increase in national insurance contributions will be devastating for pharmacies, GP practices, hospices and others.

In the other place, when Members of Parliament want to get beneath the skin of people on the other side, they occasionally say such things as, “What about the sick and dying?” I have heard that quite a few times. In this case, I have to say that those are the people who will suffer because of this increase. I do not have the financial wisdom to know whether the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about how to raise the money is viable. However, I have to say that this measure being put forward is not the correct one, because it will have such an adverse effect not just on those businesses but on the people served by them.

I know that Governments never give way on these things—I have been around long enough to know that that is the last thing they would do—but I urge the Government to have another look. I do not expect them to accept the amendments today—they may come back with an improved version—but they must look at this seriously, because it is a mistake. We will come on later to charities, which is another big issue, but for the moment we are talking about what is contained in these amendments and I urge the Government to think long and hard about what they are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The noble Baroness is trying to encourage the Liberal Democrats to be in agreement with the Conservatives, rather as her noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested at one point that he was in favour of the amendment from my noble friend Lord Scriven. We need to be a little bit careful not to agree with each other too often. But she is absolutely right. The Government have a large majority in the other place and it is not the business of this House to go against the Salisbury/Addison convention. However, I do not remember this being a manifesto commitment.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself again being somewhat like a bully standing behind the Lib Dems urging them on. But, of course, they are not bullying but providing a good service. I should also say, with regards to this Lib Dem-Conservative coalition, I was actually Deputy Chief Whip during the coalition period and I have to say that the Lib Dems, certainly in the Whips’ Office, were extremely good partners and very sensible. So I have great sympathy for the amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith or Newnham, for her speech and express sympathy for the situation she finds herself in with her father. We all will have sympathy, even if we have not gone through similar things ourselves. As with the previous group, I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said what he did, and I would prefer that we did not have all these exemptions. But the fact is that there are exemptions. That is what happens. I also say that, with regard to the veterans, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, has done us a great service in showing how many different sectors can be affected by this.

We all have a debt of gratitude to veterans. If there was an exemption, as put down in the amendment, that might be an inducement for employers to hire those people. There could be no greater service to those people, who have given everything. As the noble Baroness said, they are very skilled and have a lot to offer. One could go on down the exemption line, but I do not want to incur the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, any further. One could apply this to people who have come out of prison, because we want to encourage rehabilitation, and so forth.

However, the point is—here I reiterate—that there must be alternative ways of raising this tax. I have not got them. I could, probably, upset most people in Committee today by saying that we should perhaps have looked at introducing national insurance contributions for those over the pension age. There may be quite a few people who would come into that category who could well afford it. There again, however, I will have to watch my back on the Metropolitan line on my way home today, in case I am taken out by a couple of sticks and so forth.

I understand the difficulties the Government face, but I reiterate that we are having a deleterious effect on some vulnerable sectors—we have not got on to charities yet, so I will hold my fire on that. However, this is something we should be taking very seriously.

With regard to the point about the large majority in the Commons, there is part of me—not the nice part or the Deputy Chief Whip part—that would be very keen to see some Labour Members vote against measures that will affect their local charities and veterans, and so on. We should do a service to the gallant men and women who have taken this up in the other place by making their lives a little easier.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is such a contrast to previous years’ versions of this debate, when there would be myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, sat over there, and a handful on this side. It is really quite enjoyable to have a debate like this, but whether it is actually productive in any way I am not sure.

The problem we have is that veterans are like motherhood and apple pie. How can anyone oppose measures to assist veterans? Well, I can. There is a strange sense of déjà vu, because we had this debate in this Room two or three years ago when the last Government put forward proposals to exempt veterans. I cannot remember the details—you cannot remember everything we talk about here. However, we had the debate and discussion, and I expressed reservations about special measures for veterans. Do we have any information about what impact this has? I suspect it is a bit of tokenism.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

I had really come to the end but I will repeat my final couple of sentences. I ask the Minister whether there might be some room, given that the net gain to the Treasury in the situation for Culture Perth and Kinross would be very small at best, and that I suspect that for similar circumstances the story would be the same, for an exemption or carve-out for either the increase in rate or the increase in the starting limit for smaller charities, or indeed simply a delay for one year. We are simply not flexible enough to try to attend to the funding requirements for that.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 5, to both of which I have added my name. I echo the excellent words of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who introduced the issue of the childcare sector. I do not particularly need to add to those words, or indeed to what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said about universities, except to say that I have a university that I can remember being built in my back garden, effectively—it is not really my back garden but I could see it rise. That is Brunel University, which is excellent and, like every other such institution, it has its problems. A few years ago, I suggested that it changed the name to “Uxbridge University”, hoping that some benefactors from across the United States might get confused with Uxbridge and Oxbridge and send lots of money across. Like so many of my cunning plans, that was rejected out of hand.

I also want to speak particularly to Amendment 5 about charities, although housing associations are an important issue, too. But the issue of charities is the one we should probably be most aware of. I have to declare that I am a trustee of several charities. I have stood down from a few more in the past year or so but a lot of these charities have approached me and told me of the huge costs. Although for some of the smaller ones the costs may not be the same, in relative terms they are just as difficult.

Earlier today, I wanted to get in on a Question about the National Trust, and there were many people on both sides, but particularly on the government and Liberal Democrat sides, saying that the National Trust is a great organisation, and I would echo that. But I wonder how many people who pay their subscriptions want to see them going not towards the landscape or the historic houses, or whatever, but being swallowed up by these increases.

One charity where I was a member of the council—a trustee—until earlier this year was the RSPB and it was the same thing. It was a huge amount; we are talking about it having to pay out a couple of million. The thing with charities—I think this was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but I would like to reiterate it—is that it is not a matter of putting any prices up because they are supplying stuff. Their funding comes from either organisations, such as foundations or whatever, or individual donations. Charities are not charging for their services. They are performing lots of things which the state would otherwise have to pick up.

One thing which struck me when these organisations approached me, having seen that I put my name down to amendments, is when they told me how much they were going to have to pay they were reticent about me disclosing that, which I will stick to. I thought first, “Why are they so reticent? Is it that they do not want to upset the Government because they want to keep on-side?”. That is a perfectly logical position at this early stage of a Government. After a while, most organisations start to hate the Government rather than the political party who form that Government. Then I thought, “Maybe they do not want to because they have to rely on donations”. Whether it is somebody giving just a few pounds to the Dogs Trust or in a charity shop, if they think that that money is effectively going to the Treasury and not to the good cause that they want to support, they might be less keen. People sometimes do not need much of an excuse.

I am sure many noble Lords here today will have heard the excuse when people do not want to give to charities. They say, “Oh, it is not going to go directly to what I want it to go to”. This is something that charities will be nervous about saying publicly. I am sure that the Minister will have had representations from many charities, because they are extremely worried. This has really upset the whole sector, and it should be reconsidered.

As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, there is another possibility. I do not want to give the Minister too many let-outs, but one possibility would be to delay it. Most of these organisations, particularly by this time of the year, have made their budgets. They have put in applications for funding from other organisations and put various amounts in. To suddenly find an increased cost that they were not expecting makes it very difficult for those budgets to be met. Although I have raised the point on other sectors, to me it is the charitable sector which is the most vulnerable. We should really be considering whether we want to impose this on it.

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this group, particularly Amendments 4 and 5, but the arguments that I make really apply to many of these early groups because each one is a special plea. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton asked, “How can you speak out against an exemption in favour of veterans?”. The same could be said for small animals or whatever tugs at our heartstrings, but it comes back to the argument that my noble friend Lord Eatwell made so powerfully, which is that in an already complicated tax and national insurance system, we should avoid any further complexity if we can, and I think that the price which that may impose on different organisations is a price worth paying.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about her involvement in attempts to achieve tax simplification when she was in government. It was the Conservative Government who introduced the Office of Tax Simplification and then abolished it, perhaps because it came up with the inconvenient truth that the agricultural and business relief regime should be reviewed and, implicitly, abolished.

At Second Reading, I made a declaration of interests which include being a trustee of two charities. One of them is a higher education institution, so it is covered doubly by Amendment 4 and Amendment 5. Many noble Lords who have spoken have referred to their personal experience of charities or different organisations. I have to say that I am struck by the fact that the organisations of which I am a trustee have, without any input from me, taken this philosophically as a cost that they must cope with. No increase in cost is welcome. Energy-led inflation was not. The insurance inflation that we are all suffering from, the wage inflation that we have seen and the overall increase in the cost of living are unwelcome costs for any organisation, large or small, to bear.

As I suggested at Second Reading, there is an understanding in many organisations, including commercial ones—I cited the comments of Mr James Daunt, as chief executive of Waterstones and his eponymous chain of bookshops—that the purpose of this revenue-raising from the changes to NI feeds into supporting the community from which organisations draw their employees, customers and donors. For this reason, although I do not welcome the increase in the cases of the organisations with which I am associated and of the many others that are similarly affected, I believe in the simplicity of applying the same rate to pretty much all organisations in the private and voluntary sectors. The arguments for simplicity outweigh those of the individual challenges that this measure will give organisations.