National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

I hope that the Minister will see this proposal as a constructive suggestion that supports the Government’s long-term fiscal plan and accepts that national insurance will rise, but aims to minimise the damage caused. It is in that spirit that I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I want to speak briefly in support of this series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and others. It is very important to listen to what somebody such as my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is involved in the retail industry, has just said.

I know, given my experience of dealing with the Treasury as a Minister, that it takes an absolutist position on most things. The Treasury does not like to cede any point at all; it regards that as some sort of weakness. I suspect that the Minister has been told that this is what the Treasury has decided and that he is not to resile from any of the arguments or rescind any of the inherent parts of the Bill. However, this proposal would not really change anything.

We on this side of the House are not arguing against these increases. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in Davos about reinvigorating the economy and instilling confidence in it, at the same time as the Government are going to kick in the solar plexus a lot of those entering the market—people leaving university, for instance, and trying to get into the job market for the first time. They have an astonishing combination of challenges ahead of them, not least because of student loan repayments and the cost of housing.

If these changes are instigated so quickly now, where are the companies’ savings going to come from? They can come only from freezing employment and shedding jobs, from passing on the costs to the consumer and from totally stopping their R&D budgets. All these things are not, I would argue, in the long-term interests of the British economy.

By all means let these changes come, but let the market be prepared—the market being the employers, who can look at these changes and spend more time trying to accommodate them. Otherwise the Government are going to achieve what they think they are going to achieve on the one hand with an increase in income from these increases, but at the same time there must be a decrease because there will be fewer people in employment and more people needing some kind of financial support, which will have the precise inverse effect of what we are told the Government are seeking to achieve.

I hope that the Minister will realise that we are not trying to attack the principle of what the Government are trying to do. We recognise the fact that the Government need to raise revenue from somewhere, but we are asking the Government to think more holistically about the knock-on effects on those very people who they maintain they are also trying to help.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. It occurs to me—I would be interested to know whether it is true—that this must be the first series of amendments where the three signatories have all been directors of FTSE 100 companies. That must tell us something. I think it is the first time, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.

It is a great pleasure to speak after one of my role models—she does not know it, but it is true—my noble friend Lady Noakes, as well as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and, particularly, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Apsley Guise, who is widely regarded as one of the leading businessmen of his generation. I say that because he is from a younger generation than me, perhaps. He has an outstanding business career that has created thousands of jobs and tremendous value for shareholders. Thankfully, he still has time to contribute to your Lordships’ House and other communal activities, so when he speaks I think we should listen carefully. He is right to say that there is some truth that more expensive labour leads to greater productivity, mainly because productivity is measured as output per hour so, by definition, productivity improves, but it is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself. He mentioned the food sector. Certainly, in the hospitality sector I know of companies that are just closing down. This increase has led them to say that they are going to give it up, which cannot be what the Government want.

On 6 January, Next reported anaemic growth as the result of the tax measures. On the very same day, S&P Global’s Purchasing Managers’ Index came out and said that nearly 25% of British businesses reduced their workforce following the Budget specifically. The index indicated that the private sector has experienced its weakest growth in 14 months, with firms shedding jobs at the fastest pace in more than 15 years, other than during the pandemic. HMRC released its payroll data on 21 January. Employees in the UK declined by 47,000 to 30.3 million in December alone, the biggest drop since November 2020, which again was pandemic-related. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson mentioned, Sainsbury’s came out on 23 January with cuts to head office of 3,000 and an ambition to reduce senior management roles by 20%. Recently, on 27 January, the Confederation of British Industry reported that private sector firms expect a significant decline in activity over the next three months with a weighted balance of 22% negative. It said that this pessimism is widespread across sectors including services, distribution and manufacturing. The downturn was mainly due to the Budget.

With the assistance of someone who is much smarter than me on spreadsheets, I have tried to calculate the effect of all this. Although I am an economist by background, this is not a specialist area for me, so I would be extremely grateful if the Minister would ask the Treasury to comment on the numbers that I am going to give him. I think that they are right, but I would be more than happy to be challenged if they are not.

My premise is that the average UK earnings per full-time employee is £33,280. The number of full-time equivalents in the UK is bang on 30 million. If you increase the existing employers’ NI rate of 13.8% to 15% and reduce the existing NI threshold of £9,100 to £5,000, you get an increase in total NI take from £100 billion to £127.2 billion, giving you a total employers’ NI increase of £27.2 billion—or, to be precise, £27.154 billion—which is the sum that the Chancellor seeks. Fair enough. But, given all that we have heard today, what happens if employment reduces? You can put in any variable you like. I have taken what I regard to be a most reasonable suggestion of 3%. Let us say that, as a result of this, there is a 3% reduction in employment. Personally, I think it would be much more, but let us say 3%. At that point, the number of UK full-time equivalents becomes 29.1 million. The employers’ NI take goes to £123 billion, which is a reduction of £3.8 billion. But, at the same time, there is universal credit for those redundant full-time equivalents of £20,000 a head, which costs the Treasury £18 billion. If you add the loss of that universal credit to the reduction in NI take that I have just mentioned, you get a net loss of—guess what—bang on £27.05 billion. So, the 3% reduction in employment that I reckon will happen leads to absolutely no gain to the Treasury whatever.

I present those figures because I would like to be challenged on them and proven wrong, but I do not think that I am. Along with the signatories to the amendment, I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to reflect carefully, in the spirit of co-operation, as to whether it is wise to bring this measure in so harshly, so quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest in much the same way. If all goes to plan, I will speak on Thursday in respect of social care homes, particularly adult social care homes, where many of the same issues arise. I cannot imagine the response if a Conservative Government had decided to put national insurance rises on such institutions; can noble Lords begin to see the headlines that would be against us?

This House is a revising Chamber; it allows the Government the opportunity to pause, rethink and consider, and if ever there was a case to do so, this is it. Before the Government have the acute embarrassment of urging Peers to go through the Division Lobby to penalise care homes and hospices in such a way, I very much hope that they will take advantage of the gap between Committee and Report to reflect on the arguments.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest and thank her for her very moving and informed speech. It triggered a memory for me. I was approached by the Children’s Hospice South West for a fundraiser —my goodness, I think it was 15 years ago—and managed to raise a record amount by putting on an event for it. I saw for myself the astonishing job that hospices do. They provide a level of care and places that many of these people—children, in particular—could not find elsewhere, so the question for the Minister is this: if some of them are to shed staff and therefore be less able to take these very needy children and their relations, where will the Government step in? How will they take up the slack and what, ultimately, will be the cost to the Government?

I have some sympathy with the Minister. He has come here today to hold the Treasury line, of course, but we are wasting our time if, to each and every group of amendments we table, the stock reply is, “The Government need to raise the money. They don’t recognise the figures that the Opposition are presenting”, and we move on to another set of amendments. That does not suggest to me much dialogue or debate. But I congratulate the Minister on one thing: so far in our deliberations this afternoon he has not alluded once to the fictitious £22 billion black hole.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, listening to noble Lords present the case for Amendment 29, I agreed with every single word that was said. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, said that an exemption was required. Amendment 29 does not ask for that exemption; it asks for an assessment to be done, and therefore it does not mean that an exemption would come, which is why, on day one in Committee, we on these Benches tabled an amendment to say that an exemption for hospices should apply. If we bring that back on Report, I hope that the noble Baroness will support us as we hold our ground.

I want to talk briefly to the other amendment in this group: Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding the increase in the employer allowance to £20,000 for hospices. Just as a matter of fact, the average number of staff per hospice is 81 full-time equivalent employees, and the average salary is £23,626. Therefore, the average total salary bill for a hospice is £1.863 million, so a £20,000 employment allowance will be absolutely useless because hospitals will still be clobbered by the national insurance contribution increase. That is why we put them down for an exemption, and we hold our ground on that.