National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I begin by joining other noble Lords in offering the Green group’s tribute to the enormous contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and express our sorrow at her death.

We are debating a measure—the increase in secondary class 1 national insurance contributions—that was announced on 30 October. It feels like quite a long time ago in politics, but the timing is apt—if perhaps not intentionally so on the part of the Government—given that this is what the High Pay Centre calls “fat cat Monday”: the day on which the chief executives of the FTSE 100 companies will have made more money by 11.30 am than their average worker does in a whole year. The median pay for FTSE 100 chief executives is £4.22 million, or 113 times the median full-time worker’s pay of £37,430. After 29 hours, that is an equal amount of pay. If we compare that to last year, CEOs had to work a whole further 90 minutes to get to that figure. It is getting worse; it is heading in the wrong direction in terms of inequality.

The Minister used the term “working people” eight times in his fairly short introduction. What are the Government going to do to rebalance the rewards for working people—from the cleaner to the CEO? If the Government are looking for ideas, I am happy to proffer the Green Party policy that the top-paid person in an organisation should not be paid more than 10 times the lowest-paid person. We could perhaps start by making that a requirement for bidding for government contracts. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.

This has been a perhaps surprisingly lively debate. To be noted in particular are the wise comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, not currently in his place, about parties making promises during election campaigns, particularly promises not to do things as a knee-jerk reaction when they come under rhetorical attack. The country is in an awful state—the state left by the former Government—with eviscerated public services, rampant poverty and inequality, as fat cat Monday illustrates, and terrible public and environmental health.

The country had a hope and expectation that the new Government would come in with a plan and a worked-out vision for what to do. Instead, we have this national insurance employer contribution increase, which is a large plaster—and for many crucial services, such as health and social care, a toxic plaster—on the obviously awful state of the national finances. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the importance of national morale, which is of course suffering from the rampant unfairness and desperation wrought by the two-child benefit cap and the cuts to the pensioner winter fuel payment. The depressing of the mood is coming from many directions.

On a specific point, I declare my position as vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. At present, as I understand it, parish and town councils are not included in the Government’s public sector compensation scheme. It is now calculated that the cost of compensation for them would be just £10 million a year in England. Conversely, the absence of compensation could risk council tax rises of 1.5% to 3% for parish and town residents. Is that something that the Government are going to pick up?

My honourable friends in the other place were part of a reasoned amendment that this Bill not be given a Second Reading because the Office for Budget Responsibility has found that the increase in NI contributions will lead to stalled real wage growth and higher prices for workers and incur additional costs for the public and third sectors, and noting that the Government did not choose to pursue more progressive forms of taxation, such as full equalisation of capital gains tax with income tax rates and by introducing a wealth tax to raise revenue. The Minister suggested that anyone complaining about this Bill should suggest alternatives. I point him to the wealth tax proposed by the Green Party in last year’s election campaign, which is gathering further support around the country all the time, and to that equalisation of capital gains tax. Fat cats, by definition, have broad shoulders.

I come now to the question of what this Chamber should do. In the other place, Greens joined Liberal Democrats in backing amendments to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the Bill, but I see no point in repeating that exercise here. I wonder what the Benches to my right would have said a year ago had Labour tried the same tactic that they are apparently planning on what is not quite a money Bill. The Green group will support the regret amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, tonight, while regretting that the Government have got themselves into this mess by making narrow electoral calculations in last year’s election campaign.

We need courage and vision in our politics, and we need to offer hope of addressing poverty and inequality, rampant ill health and environmental damage. As Greens, we know, as we have heard from many sides of the House today, that what are all too often hollow promises of growth do nothing to address the question of who benefits from that growth and what damage is done as a result. The Minister spoke about the increased size of the economy, but the pie cannot keep getting bigger. You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet, and you cannot rely on those now getting crumbs from the fat cats’ table getting a few more crumbs. We have to slice up the pie more fairly.

While the Treasury is used to thinking that it is fiscal levers that it has to pull and fiscal measures that it has to adjust, it will have to come to terms with the reality that the physical limits of our planet and the rapidly changing climate, which is having significant impacts on food security and supply right across our supply chains, as well as the disasters of fire, flood, drought and heat, are not responsive to any economic theories, particularly not outdated and failed economic theories that are deployed again and again to get the same result.

I spent my holidays reading, among others, the ecological anthropologist Alf Hornborg, who notes:

“Among the … obvious shortcomings of the current world order is its inclination to generate abysmal inequalities and ecologically disastrous patterns of consumption and resource use, and yet our mainstream discourse tends to represent these conditions merely as the deplorable but unavoidable side effects of progress”.


Yet the disasters are catching up with us, and this Bill and most actions of the Government are not acting to address the “abysmal inequalities”. Indeed, they risk increasing them, and are going to increase them.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The example that he just gave us illustrates, down at the level of fine detail, the broader point I want to make about charitable organisations and non-governmental, not-for-profit organisations.

In thinking about making a contribution to this debate, I looked up contributions around the phrase, “I wouldn’t start from here”, to see some quotations. I found lots of rather repetitive jokes—noble Lords can look them up for themselves—so I shall aim not to be repetitive. As I said at Second Reading, the Green Party believes we should start with a wealth tax so that the people with the broadest shoulders make contributions to society in order that we can do what we need to do: invest far more in our austerity-stricken services and infrastructure and tackle the climate emergency and nature crisis. However, we can combine two things here and focus on charities and non-governmental organisations. We are talking about hospices, for goodness’ sake, which these amendments of which I am broadly in favour, deal with.

I want to cross-reference two Early Day Motions in the other place: EDMs 374 and 380, tabled by my honourable friend Ellie Chowns. They look at what a mess the social care sector is in now, with the chronic underfunding and the workforce shortages problems. They also note how much the voluntary sector is already under strain from escalating operating costs and cuts to contract funding.

The elements of these amendments that are worth focusing on are voluntary sector charities and not-for-profit organisations. I have a proposal to put to the Minister; it comes from the charities and NGOs that I have spoken to. They are saying, “Yes, we can imagine a scenario where we could cope with this national insurance rise, but not on 6 April, which is so close, with our budgets all set out and our staffing set in the position it is now”. Would the Government consider, specifically in the case of charities, non-governmental organisations and not-for-profits—particularly those in social care; the Government can draw the lines wherever they like—postponing for a year? This would surely not involve that much money in terms of the Budget, but postponing for a year would give these organisations the chance to reorganise their budgets so that they have a chance to prepare for this situation. That is neither where I would like to end up nor where I would like to start, but it is a constructive suggestion to help these organisations, many of which are in desperate straits.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, it is rather unusual for a Bill that will have such a devastating impact on our country, businesses, charities and so on to have its Committee stage in Grand Committee. Normally, we would have it on the Floor of the House. It is certainly true that past national insurance Bills have been taken in Grand Committee, but it is distressing that the Government have chosen to push this Grand Committee to consider a very controversial Bill that will affect many groups of people. It should be taken on the Floor of the House.

I hope that this is neither a precedent nor a move that drives us in the direction of the House of Commons, which moved towards the timetabling of Bills, and proper scrutiny of important Bills, on the Floor of the House. We are familiar with the consequences of that: us having endless amendments to legislation that has not been properly scrutinised. If this was about saving time, I do not think it is going to work, because the fact that we cannot have votes in this Committee will mean us spending, perhaps unnecessarily, rather a long time on Report. Of course, the whole point of Committee stage is that it enables a bit of to and fro and discussion under the rules that apply in that respect.

I find myself in an unusual position in the Grand Committee, speaking on a highly controversial Bill, devastating in its consequences. The Minister is keen on telling us about black holes and this creates an enormous black hole in the delivery of public services and for businesses up and down the land. The unusual position in which I find myself is being in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I started to make notes to find something that I thought he had got wrong, but I could not say anything until I looked at the amendment, because the flaw in his erudite and proper analysis of the damage that will be done to GPs, social care, pharmacies, hospices and others is the distinction that he makes between the public and private sectors.

Apparently, if one is doing this in the private sector, it is okay to slap on a great tax that means one has to consider dismissing staff and so on. But if it is in the public sector, that is completely unacceptable. This is particularly egregious, although I think, and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, he makes an exception for the provision of care home services in the private sector. I am not sure if that is right. I shall happily give way to him if he thinks I have got it wrong. In other respects, however, it is all about giving—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, on growth, and indeed on the hospitality industry, it is particularly good to have the practical experience of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. I agree with him that it would be helpful to understand today’s employment decline a little better in the Committee.

According to the ONS, there are 8.4 million people working part-time in the UK, which is approximately one-quarter of the workforce. They work in large and small firms and include many young people, students and carers, as well as disproportionate numbers in hospitality, tourism and retail. I know from my days at Tesco how important part-time workers are to big employers as well as small employers, and, in particular, to 24/7 businesses—retail is a 24/7 business. That includes a lot of employment of elderly people. Also, as was said, part-time workers are not only the lowly paid—I had several part-time directors working for me—and good employers offer proper training to their part-time teams. It is an extremely important part of the economy.

While the rise in the national insurance rate to 15% will no doubt hit part-time workers, it is the huge reduction of the threshold to £5,000 from £9,100 that will have the most detrimental consequences for those who work part-time. It is yet another blow to the sector, alongside the increase in the minimum wage that comes into force in April.

As a result, a company that employs a part-time worker over the age of 21 who works just eight hours a week on the minimum wage—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said it was down from 14 hours a week —will be hit with this jobs tax for the first time, and the hospitality sector will be disproportionately affected. I think Kate Nicholls used the word “eye-watering”. The industry has warned that the measures announced in the Bill will cost it £1 billion overall. My noble friend Lord Ahmad quoted that figure as well. He is right about the adverse consequences of this and the need for consultation on such changes. How can you adjust your business model and be ready if you do not know what is coming?

It is really difficult for these companies. For the first time, they will have to pay tax on the wages of thousands of part-time hospitality workers. UKHospitality has estimated that a company employing a part-time worker doing 15 hours a week will see a 73% increase in its national insurance bill. It goes without saying that business will have to make tough decisions, as employing part-time workers is soon to become much more expensive. The trouble is that part-time work provides a flexible form of employment for so many—I have mentioned students and carers, but parents are also affected. It can be very useful in juggling what families do. These are people who rely on the flexibility of part-time contracts and might not otherwise be able to work at all.

Can the Minister tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of the effect of the changes enabled by the Bill on part-time workers? Perhaps he could also comment on the levels of employment within the hospitality sector and how he sees that panning out. How do the Government intend to support industries that will be most impacted by these changes to national insurance contributions? How can he give them hope and how can we be sure that they continue to play their part in growth? It is difficult and we need to try to find some comfort.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking after the Tory Front Bench, but I thought the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was continuing after the voting break.

I will speak briefly in favour of Amendments 58 and 59. In doing that, perhaps I should declare an interest. I was on the board of the Fawcett Society in 2010 when it brought a judicial review against the emergency Budget of that year for its failure to honour its legal duty under the Equality Act to do with gender impact assessment. In that case, although Fawcett lost the overall case on legal grounds, it was said that the gender impact assessment requirements applied to the Budget and should have been carried out on a couple of aspects of that Budget.

With that in mind, I draw attention to the final page of the policy paper of 13 November, which I think we are regarding as an impact assessment. Under the heading “Equalities Impacts”, in this five-page document that my sub-editor’s eye tells me is in 16-point, it states:

“Secondary Class 1 NICs are levied on employers rather than individuals. There are therefore no direct equalities impacts”.


I would like to question the Minister on how it can be claimed that there are no equalities impacts. Some figures have already been raised, but I point out that 74% of part-time workers are female, 57% of involuntary part-time workers are female, 6 million women are working part time and 10 million women are working full time. According to the Resolution Foundation’s analysis of ONS data, 63% of UK workers under the £9,100 threshold are female. We are seeing national insurance charges increasing the cost of employment by nearly £700 a year for someone working 15 hours a week on the minimum wage. An additional 600,000 women workers are being brought within scope of national insurance. As others have said, on the minimum wage you need to work fewer than eight hours a week to stay below the new threshold.

Analysis of this has suggested that women workers are particularly affected by this change. Some of them may want to raise their hours, so this might turn out positive. Some of them may have caring responsibilities that mean that they cannot lift their hours and may then have to leave employment because they are being offered more or nothing. It is also worth pointing out that the Women’s Budget Group has highlighted how the overall impacts of the national insurance changes are likely significantly to increase childcare costs. That is of immediate relevance to working women with direct childcare responsibilities, but, as the Women’s Budget Group pointed out, there are also issues around grandparents, very likely grandmothers, who may find themselves being pushed, and feeling obligated, to leave employment so that they can take up childcare responsibilities. I do not think that that equalities impact can be justified and would appreciate the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will address the amendments and the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Londesborough. These seek to set a reduced rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers at 7.5%. As I have said before, the difficult decisions in the Bill were necessary to repair the public finances, protect working people and invest in Britain’s future. This amendment would reduce the revenue raised from the Bill and therefore prevent the Government achieving those objectives. In policy terms, reducing the rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers would create additional complexity in the tax system and distortions in the labour market.

The Government have taken action to support those on lower pay by increasing the national minimum wage, which I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, describe as a blow. I think that will be interesting to those on lower pay. We have also introduced important protections for workers as part of the plan to make work pay.

Employers will also continue to benefit from employer national insurance reliefs, including for hiring under-21 and under-25 apprentices, where eligible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also spoke about umbrella companies and mini umbrella companies. I will just note that the Government are committed to closing the tax gap and have announced, as part of the closing the tax gap package in the Budget, that we will bring forward measures to tackle non-compliance in the umbrella company market, including mini umbrella company fraud.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke specifically about equalities impacts. I can say that they were fully considered and we are confident that they are set out in the tax information impact note that she referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am standing in what would usually be a winding position, but I think Amendments 4 and 5 have been so thoroughly discussed and I am very much in support of most of the comments.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that I think it is very dangerous to always worship at the altar of simplification. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, if it was the precise phrase, you end up with so many hard cases as a consequence of that. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, talked about a specific charity that is delivering warm spaces—and on a day like today, when we have had to bring additional heaters into this Room, boy, something like that comes home. It is now facing additional costs that it could not possibly have planned for, without the time to put any kind of scheme in place that would give it the breathing space to be able to deal with that kind of challenge. I just find it extraordinary.

However, I wanted primarily to speak to Amendment 8, which has been less discussed today. I thank the National Association of Local Councils for a briefing. Like many others, I was very shocked when the Government confirmed that the upper tier of local authorities would qualify for financial support to offset the increased cost of employer NICs, but parish and town councils were to be excluded because they do not receive funding through the local government finance scheme. Parish and town councils raise their funding via precept. Therefore, these councils will undoubtedly have to increase local taxes in order to cover the additional costs. They have nowhere else to go.

I am sure that that was not in Labour’s manifesto and that this is something Labour did not intend, but there really is no other route they can go down other than to increase council tax. Its calculation is that the NICs increase will cost English parish and town councils approximately £10 million each year, requiring an increase of something between 1.5% and 3% to cover the additional cost—that is £10 million each year, and £50 million over the life of a Parliament. It really is a rounding error. I just cannot understand why town and parish councils were excluded from the provision for upper tier councils.

Part of the argument is around fairness, but there is also an argument around democracy. Many people can relate to their town and parish councils, as others have said, in a way that they do not relate to higher tiers. It is at the parish and town level that money goes to projects that are specifically designed around the needs of a local community. They really are very different in the services that they provide. I am concerned, on a broader scale, about the centralisation of local government that we have been seeing: in essence, we are looking at unitary authorities with something like half a million people in them as the decision-making, strategic and implementation element of local government.

I very much fear that the difficulties that parish and town councils will face will turn them much more into agencies of that upper tier, rather than something at the level of local government with the capacity to respond to local needs and to underpin the character and nature of each individual community. The amount of money is so trifling that, in putting these councils on an equal basis with upper tier ones, there must be some other agenda at work here. I do not know what it is; perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.

This amendment is in my name, as are Amendments 4 and 5. I very much hope that the Government are listening because these are issues of significance.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I will be brief; I want specifically to speak in favour of Amendment 8, given that I raised this issue at Second Reading. I should declare my position as vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils.

I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. I have just one point to add. As the noble Baroness was speaking, I was thinking about a recent visit to Shropshire. A whole lot of town and parish council leaders and councillors were gathered in a room and talking about all the projects that their councils were running. One of the things I thought about were the photos and slides that were being shown, and how much volunteer effort was involved in the projects being displayed. The money is spent by town and parish councils because they are close to, and there in, the community. Often, it is a community effort to install the bug hotel in the allotments or to put up swift boxes around towns—all sorts of things that many people get involved in on a voluntary level. In taking money away from that, the multiplier effect is much greater. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, we are talking about a tiny sum of money in central government terms but something that is hugely consequential in communities up and down the land.

I spoke at some length on charities earlier but there are two specific points that I want to make. I mentioned earlier—the Minister did not respond to me on this—the idea of having a one-year delay for charities so that they have time to work out both the budget and ways to deal with the rise in national insurance; this was something that both the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about that point regarding a delay specifically for charities.

I wish to pick up the point from the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, about complexity. An organisation either is or is not a charity. That would be a really simple way to see this, involving low paperwork. Complexity would be easy to introduce; for a small or medium-sized enterprise or something, it might be more complicated. I do not think, I am afraid, that anyone can compete with the Green Party on our views on simplification because we want to roll together income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax. If that were the case, the Green Minister would not be over there: we would be going through this in one day in the House—provided it was still constituted as it is now when we got to that stage.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

11A: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage until 6 April 2026 (after which the relevant percentage is as determined by the rest of this subsection);”. (A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a charity.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I tabled my Amendment 11A after our extensive discussion, on the previous day of Committee, about the impact of the national insurance rise on charities. As I prefaced in my presentation last time, it started with a CEO of a significant charity, who came to me and said, “If we could have one year to sort things out first, we would just about be able to cope with this, but the speed with which this increase in costs is happening is more than we can cope with”.

I apologise that there is no Member’s explanatory statement on this amendment—that is entirely my fault—but I lay out for clarity that it is intended to delay, for charities, the increase in the employers’ national insurance contribution by one year.

It is interesting that, earlier today, I was hosting an event launching a report on debanking in Muslim charities and its impact on charitable activities. There was much discussion at this event about the many difficulties that charities currently face, but the top one that was listed—after the issue under discussion—was the national insurance rise and the speed with which it is hitting charities.

I note some of the figures around this. The sector has said that the cost to charities will be about £1.4 billion. Research from 400 charities by the Charity Finance Group shows that 87% are concerned about being able to afford this increase. Some 27% of organisations running charity shops say that this increase is likely to result in closures of charity shops; those are the Charity Retail Association’s figures. We are often concerned about what is happening on our high streets, and there is perhaps concern about the dominance of charity shops, but if they close, we will just have even more empty shops on our high streets—as well as the loss to charities in terms of the services they provide and the funds raised.

Let me give one example of this, which was reported by ITV. The CEO of the Little Miracles charity, which helps 50,000 families that have children with life-limiting disabilities, said that this measure will cost that charity a minimum of £24,000. It is a small local charity with about 670 volunteers, so finding that sum of money is a really big challenge for that organisation.

It is worth noting that one of the reports from the West Lothian Voluntary Sector Gateway told the local council:

“This wholly unexpected cost will inevitably place additional financial pressures on already stretched Third Sector and social enterprises locally”.


That unexpected, sudden arrival is really the issue there. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations wrote to the Chancellor. In response to its suggestion that charities should be exempted, Rachel Reeves said:

“The government has committed to provide support for … public sector employers”,


given the rising costs, but for no one other than the public sector. It is worth considering that the combination of austerity and ideology has meant that, for many services, the slack in much of the provision that used to be picked up by public services has now been picked up by the charitable sector. It is then being hit again with this cost.

This amendment is quite moderate and small-scale. I do not have the capacity but perhaps the Minister could tell us what the one-year cost would be. I note what the cost will be if charities have to deal with this sudden increase in costs when they are facing so many other pressures. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 32. I refer your Lordships to my registered interests, in particular my roles with charities. The purpose of my amendment is to deal with the huge concerns we are hearing from across the sector and elsewhere, as the noble Baroness just mentioned, as well as the impact of the increase in employers’ national insurance on both the charity and voluntary sectors and the services that they deliver.

The sector is telling us that these increases will force many to reduce staff, cut salaries, scale back their services and, in some cases, consider closure. The increases will adversely affect the support that they give to people and their communities, which is why my amendment asks for the much-needed impact assessment. Had the Government already prepared the impact assessment—and I do not accept that the impact note to which the Minister has referred provides the evidence needed—they might already have accepted the need to make exceptions to the charitable sector.

Many noble Lords have spoken with passion about the negative effect of the increases in national insurance on the charitable sector. I am very aware that the Government have not been able to move on any of the requests at the moment. At the risk of repetition, up and down the country the voluntary sector is feeling the strain. Its representatives, such as the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, the NCVO, have already voiced concerns in their open letter to the Chancellor, highlighting that this increase will add an additional £1.4 billion in unwelcome and unsustainable costs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the points that I have set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this rich and frequently passionate debate, and I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that I will cross-reference something that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, said, which is that charities are helping vulnerable people in dreadful circumstances. We have been talking about charities as organisations and institutions, but, ultimately, at the end of the line are those vulnerable people. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, made the point that those vulnerable people will still be there with their needs; if the charity closes down or cuts back its services, the Government will have to pick up the slack at that point. The Minister said that, if any of the measures proposed in this group of amendments were introduced, the Government would have to lower spending. But that would mean that they would have to raise spending on things they are not spending on now because the charities would not be providing it. We are in a circular situation, with all the disruption that happens as people lose jobs, organisations close down and things have to be recreated. That is the situation that we are in.

There were many contributions, so I will not go through them in length, but there are a couple of points that I want to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, spoke about his brave, regular running commitments. To build on what he said, we know that what encourages people to give to charities is the sense that their money will be directly used to help the relevant people. Of course, when we are talking about something like WaterAid—speaking as someone who is passionate about antimicrobial resistance and maternal health—it is absolutely crucial. People want to see it providing the services and, if they do not see that, and they hear all the talk about this, maybe they will not donate, because they will feel like they are just giving money to the Government. That is a further damaging factor for charities and their fundraising.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, also spoke about sacking fundraisers. If one of the things that we are talking about—what my amendment aims to get to—is to delay so that charities have a chance to prepare. If there is not that delay, however, and there is an emergency that has to be dealt with now, you of course do not want to cut the direct service providers who care for those vulnerable people. Fundraisers, therefore, are the obvious people to sack, but the long-term consequences are obvious.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness agree with me that one of the other cumulative problems is the national living wage? We all agree that it should be increased to help low-paid people, but accommodating that for small charities—with an increase in national insurance charges plus the encumbrance of paying the national living wage—will be very difficult, particularly for homelessness charities, for instance. The Government’s strategic aim is to reduce homelessness, but this will put huge pressure on charities such as Crisis and Shelter.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

In responding to the noble Lord, I can only applaud the increase in the national minimum wage—indeed, I would encourage it to be significantly higher. None the less, the noble Lord’s point about the situation for charities is entirely accurate.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said something earlier—and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, backed this up—about how many ideas the Government end up delivering actually start with small, campaigning charities. They save the Government having to do the work because, when there is a problem and something really needs to be done about it, they do all the work on what needs to be done about it.

Obviously, I will withdraw my amendment at this stage, but it is clear that we will come back to this issue on Report. I am still quite dedicated to the idea of at least delaying the measure, which would not interfere with the Government’s long-term economic plans but would give charities time to adjust. On the £1.4 billion, the Government could save that much in the extra spending that they will have to make if they insist on collecting that money, so it all balances out.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I totally agree, but there will be charities going bust in the next six months. I know that we want to delay it, but there is an urgency in saying, “This is going to be really detrimental, and that knock-on effect is going to be huge”. That is why I cannot quite understand why we have not had a detailed assessment statement—and why I am asking for it—because surely this would come through in that detailed statement.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I agree with the noble Baroness and support her amendment. I have already reflected on the lack of a proper impact statement in many different areas; I would entirely back the noble Baroness’s approach. We need to understand what is happening, but we have two things here: giving charities time to deal with it, and understanding what we are doing. We may well end up coming back to both of those things on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 11A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 67, which stands in my name. It is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, whose names were not entered in time for the Marshalled List.

I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, said in support of Amendments 14 and 27, in her name, and others concerning the provision of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities—many years ago, my identical twin brother was one of them. My amendment has the same intention, albeit a slightly different effect.

When I raised my concern at Second Reading, the Minister, in response, referred to both the increased settlement overall for local government in the coming financial year and to the extra £515 million to cushion local authorities against the impact of national insurance changes. I wrote to the Minister on 10 January about my concern that such funding did not cover contracted-out services, and I have yet to receive a reply—hence my amendment, which is now before the Grand Committee.

The Local Government Association on 28 November stated that the measures that the Government seeks

“will lead to a £637 million increase in councils’ wage bills for directly employed staff, and up to £1.13 billion through indirect costs via external providers including up to £628 million for commissioned adult social care services”.

It is therefore clear that the concerns that I laid before your Lordships’ House on 6 January are well founded and remain current.

The transport provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities is, of necessity, a very labour-intensive one. It also requires dedicated recruitment, since not any driver will do, and in some cases a passenger assistant is also required. As we have heard, the children involved place enormous value on continuity and trust. Hence, it is key that they trust the staff who serve them in this way and, once that trust is established, that these are the people with whom they routinely deal. It is hard to describe the anguish that will result if contracts become unviable, or the additional pressures this will place on parents. There will be inevitable breaks in education, which can easily affect the rest of an individual’s life.

Noble Lords resident in North Yorkshire, the West Riding, north Lincolnshire or South Yorkshire may have seen the regional news bulletin, “ITV Calendar (North)”, on 22 January, just a few days ago. Its first and main news item was this very issue, setting out, with some of the people affected, what the impact would be. It is hard not to sympathise with, for example, the bewilderment of the mother of a mute child at the very real likelihood of the loss of her son’s provision.

I accept that Governments take tough decisions and that there is a burden to public service borne by those who serve us in this way. However, in this instance, the chief burden and distress—the overwhelming hardship—will be borne by SEND children and their parents. As this is a situation brought into being by the Government, it is appropriate to look to His Majesty’s Government for a solution, and I would be happy not to press the amendment if they were to proffer a remedy such as ring-fenced funding.

Unlike Amendments 14 and 27, my amendment, which requires the Government to review and estimate the impact on the SEND transport sector in each of three tax years, and to state what remedy might be applied, includes the ameliorating provisions of Clause 3. However, as your Lordships will have established and the Minister knows, that clause will not be the remedy here. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I rise briefly to offer the Green group’s support for all these amendments. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate’s amendment gives the Government a way forward that does not interfere with the general progress of the Bill but any of these would do.

I am going to make two quick points. First, I note the briefing I received from the chair of the Licensed Private Hire Car Association’s SEND group, setting out the points that have been made on how it is desperately concerned and the chaos that this national insurance rise has the potential to cause it.

Secondly, I point out that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is in the other place. There, the Government are trying to deal with, help and support children with special educational needs and disabilities, and their parents, through that Bill. Then we have this Bill, which is undoing, and creating further risks and damage. It is useful to set those two against each other. In your Lordships’ House, we often hear expert testimony about how difficult life is for children with special educational needs and disabilities and, of course, their families and parents. This is—I am going to use an informal term—such a no-brainer to sort out.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. If I had spotted the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark in time, I would have signed it because it makes absolute sense. There is a pressure created, when one knows that a review is coming afterwards, to think through actions now. All in this Committee recognise that this Bill deals with the weakest of the weak. As there are two Bills, this one and one in the other place, either of which could be used to manage a remedy, I should have thought the Government might have been able to see a way through this.

I wanted to mention a procedural thing, just as a comment on the statement made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I hope that he realises that if he does not withdraw his amendment at this stage, he will not be able to bring it back on Report. Some people are not clear on that element of the procedure, so I mention it simply in case it guides what he might wish to do.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

68: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of effect on people with protected characteristicsThe Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of the measures in this Act on people with protected characteristics.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will also speak to Amendment 69, which is also in my name. Amendment 68, like a number of other amendments that we have discussed today, calls for a review of the impact of the increase in employers’ national insurance, particularly the effect on people with protected characteristics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first address the amendment seeking to require the Government to review the impact of the measures in the Bill on people with protected characteristics. The Government carefully consider the impact of all decisions on those sharing protected characteristics, in line with our legal obligations and our commitment to greater fairness and opportunity. The Government are committed to meeting their obligation to the public sector equality duty, and Ministers are confident that the Government have met the obligation for the changes in this Bill.

Turning to the amendment requiring a review of the impact of the Bill on the environment and green jobs, as I have said previously, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in their tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with the previous changes to national insurance and previous changes to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments. In light of these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the comments made earlier about the quality of debate and response that we have received from the Government in this Committee. I must express agreement with those statements. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for responding here. I point out that these amendments very much reflect her Amendment 64, which concerns the impact on economic growth, so I am not sure that the arguments about increased bureaucracy and resource cost will apply equally to her amendments.

None the less, let me pick up the points made by the Minister. He said, in referring to the effect on people with protected characteristics, that the Government are considering this carefully. I invite this Committee to consider some of the reports that have come out this week on the lack of trust—among young people in particular—in our Government and our so-called democracy. If we are to win back trust and have people feel that the Government are acting for the common good, not for a few special interests, the Government will need to show their workings. If the Government do indeed care, they need to demonstrate that they care, which is the kind of thing that this review would do.

On Amendment 69, I say again in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the economy is a complete subset of the environment. There are no jobs on a dead planet. There is not much point in assessing economic growth if there is nothing living for it to grow in. We are in Committee so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I will be back.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment, in the names of my noble friend Lady Kramer and myself, adds to the list of exemptions from the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions. I thought I would make that clear at the outset, although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is temporarily not in his place.

The arguments in favour of the nine proposed exemptions in this amendment were discussed in some detail in Committee. What the nine exemptions have in common is that they protect services that are vital to community life and are likely to suffer grave damage if the higher employer NIC is introduced. These services include early years education, charities, housing associations and town and parish councils. Each of these organisations makes a vital contribution to our communal life, and they also have in common the fact that most have no—or no significant—money. The proposed ENIC increase will inevitably reduce the critical services they provide, in many cases to the most disadvantaged in our communities.

The list of exemptions in our amendment also includes further and higher education, and I declare an interest as a member of council at UCL. Both our FE and HE institutions are in grave financial difficulties. This has been true for many years for our somewhat neglected FE sector and is now also obviously true for our higher education sector. The country’s future prosperity and its prospects for growth depend very largely upon these sectors being properly and sustainably funded. If we want a skilled and upskilled workforce, then FE colleges have a vital and irreplaceable role to play, but to play that role they need adequate funding.

I did ask, in Committee, about the funding arrangements for the FE sector. The Minister replied last week. He noted, by way of preamble, that the Government would

“provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions”.

He does not say what “support” means. He does say that the Autumn Budget provided an additional £300 million in revenue for funding for FEs for the financial year 2025-26

“to ensure young people are developing the skills this country needs”.

He does not say to what extent this will mitigate the imposition of the higher employer national insurance contribution. Could I therefore ask him again to tell us, when he replies: what percentage of the increase in the employer national insurance contribution will be mitigated by the allocation of funds from this £300 million, both in the short term from April to July this year and in the academic year 2025-26?

The Minister’s reply to my Committee stage question also includes a mention of the rise of £285 per annum in student fees chargeable by HEIs from the academic year 2025-26. This will not be enough to sustain our higher education sector. As I mentioned in Committee, our universities are already showing signs of deep financial distress. I noted then that nearly three quarters of institutions are expected to run deficits in the next academic year, and 40% have less than a month’s liquidity. I also noted that three Russell group research-intensive universities—Cardiff, Durham and Newcastle—had joined the long list of universities cutting jobs and costs. Now, Edinburgh has joined them in also announcing cuts, and I hear that at least one eminent university is close to breaching its banking covenants, with all the usual consequences. It is no surprise that it is estimated that 10,000 jobs will go this year.

This is a genuine crisis and it is made worse by the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions. This new ENIC levy completely wipes out and more any net increase arising from the increase in student fees. The UK has four of the world’s top 10 universities and 16 of the world’s top 100 universities. We absolutely need to have our universities prosper and to be sustainably funded if we are to continue to be a world-class centre for education and research and to contribute to the growth that we so obviously need. Our amendment would, at least, prevent the already perilous situation from getting worse while the Government devise a new and sustainable funding arrangement.

Our amendment also excludes any SMEs and the hospitality sector from the rise in ENICs. SMEs are the wellspring of our economy and of its future. Some 60% of all jobs are provided by SMEs and these companies, almost by definition, are those that will have most difficulty absorbing the proposed rise in the ENIC rates. Significant job losses are inevitable. This matters not only because any job lost is regrettable but because SMEs are the engines of growth, renewal and innovation in our economy, and they create the jobs. Large corporations may be easier for government and Whitehall to deal with, but they are, and have been for a long time, net destroyers of jobs.

Many of the jobs created by SMEs will, of course, be in the hospitality sector, which this amendment also excludes from the proposed rise in contributions. Many of those jobs in the hospitality sector—currently around 350,000—are held by people under 25. For many, this will be their first job and the first step on a career ladder. To keep all these young people in employment after the proposed ENIC rise would nearly double the employers’ costs from £82 million to £153 million. We should protect these young entry-level employees from job losses by exempting their employers from the proposed NIC rise. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 8 in my name and Amendment 41 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. This is the first time I have taken part on Report but I sat and listened carefully to the entire debate on the first group, which covered a lot of the issues that relate particularly to Amendment 8.

Amendment 8 has a very simple and clear purpose, even though the technicalities are quite technical. It aims to delay for one year the introduction of the raised level of national insurance for all registered charities. Other amendments in this group deal with smaller charities and others with groups of organisations, many of which may be charities, but this is an exemption for one year for all charities.

I want to take on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I am not quite sure which amendments he was counting in his 38, but I strongly assert that neither Amendment 8 nor Amendment 41 could in any way be described as a wrecking amendment, because they do not affect the Government’s long-term economic policy or plans. They mean that for one year the Government would not receive, in their own estimate, £1.4 billion.

I tabled the same amendment in Committee and did not get an answer from the Minister to my question; I would be interested to hear any response tonight. It was on a point raised in the first group of amendments. If charities go under or are forced to slash their services, how much are the Government going to have to fund through other means—through social care, government provision or whatever mechanisms? I do not have the capacity to put a figure on that, but it seems likely that there may not be very much difference between those two figures.

I tabled this in Committee because of the CEO of a fairly large charity with whom I happened to be having dinner. We were not having a deeply political, detailed discussion. She simply said to me, “If I just had one year to sort this out, I would have half a chance”. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who is not currently in his place, said in the debate on the first group that so many organisations— I think he was specifically referring to charities—were encountering this unexpected expense. It is the suddenness and the lack of a chance to think, “Can we shift some money into fundraising to increase the funding stream so that we can cope with this down the track?”. That is what this amendment seeks to do.

I find myself in quite an unusual position as a Green, saying that I have put forward this really moderate, reasonable amendment that is quite small in scale compared with some of the other things we are discussing here. But it is a really practical step to attempt to protect charities and all the essential services.

We heard so much passion from people who are directly involved in delivering these services from charities. I am not going to repeat that long list now, but I will just raise one point—I do not think it has been raised up to now—on the place of charity shops on our high streets. They are already struggling. We are already seeing significant closures of charity shops, faced with rising energy costs and—no one is complaining—rising staff costs due to the increase in the minimum wage. If we further hollow out our high streets by losing those charity shops, that too will have all sorts of costs that in one way or another the Government are going to have to pick up.

So that is Amendment 8. I gave notice that I was going to see how this evening went. I am currently feeling inclined to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 9, which is in my name. I suspect that it may have been subject to pre-emption, along with Amendment 8. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is surprised, I am equally surprised that I think I agree with all of her remarks. That means that I would like to focus on Amendment 4, dealing with charity revenues of less than £1 million, which I believe is not subject to pre-emption.

According to the Charity Commission website, there are about 170,000 charities in the UK, with about £100 billion of income in aggregate and 1.3 million employees. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe wants us to concentrate on those charities with an annual revenue of below £1 million.

There is different terminology that can be used by the Charity Commission, because it talks about gross income. On average, charities’ donations and legacies are about one-third of their total income, as was the case with the Thames Hospice, which I described earlier. The rest of the income is grants, investments and so on. A charity with £1 million of revenue will probably raise only some £350,000 in donations. I calculate from the available information that the sums raised by charities with revenues of less than £1 million total some £12 billion, which is 12% of total charity income. But there are 162,000 charities with an income of under £1 million, which means that we are talking about 95% of all UK charities.

As for their spend on national insurance, it is hard to determine, because we do not know exactly how much they spend on employment. We do know how much they spend on total expenditure, which is some £12 billion. If we assume that 50% of that—it is a very generous assumption—is on employee costs, and if we assume a salary of around £25,000, because it is a low-paid sector, then my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would impact only 240,000 people.

To try to answer the criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I calculated that my noble friend’s amendment would cost the Government around £480 million—half a billion pounds. Is the Minister going to tell us that he is not prepared to protect 95% of charities for just £500 million? Does he recognise my figure? If not, what is the cost of the amendment? I invite him to join us in pausing the hike until we work out what it is, so that we can then have a meaningful discussion.

I remind the Minister that in a speech to the civil society summit last year, hosted by Pro Bono Economics, Sir Keir Starmer promised to reset the relationship between civil society and government. Is this what he meant? He said that

“for too long, your voice has been ignored”.

I have read the full speech, and he also said,

“we know it’s people on the ground, people with skin in the game, who understand the problems best and have the best answers”.

He continued in his speech to civil society leaders, which largely rubbished Tory policies, by saying,

“let’s be honest, for too long, your voice has been ignored between the shouts of the market and the state”.

Are the Prime Minister and his Ministers listening now? Those leaders are calling for this national insurance hike to be dropped.

Why would the Government want to penalise 162,000 charities, where our fellow citizens give so much of their time freely, and in many cases their cash, simply for the betterment of fellow citizens at home and abroad? It is a shameful imposition.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, on a point of clarification, I have received information that my Amendment 8 has not been pre-empted and still stands.