National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

At end insert “but that, while recognising the need to rebuild public services and finances, this House regrets that the Bill risks worsening pressures in the NHS and social care by placing costs on GPs and dentists, social care providers and hospices; increases burdens on small businesses, early years providers, universities and charities; and penalises part-time work, and puts jobs and economic growth at risk”.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, before I begin, I say to the House that on these Benches, we will make sure that the words of appreciation and expressions of friendship for Baroness Randerson will be passed back to her family. I am sure that they will mean a great deal to them. I suspect that on many Benches, as on our Benches, noble Lords are somewhat in shock. We have lost not just a colleague and highly respected politician but a very real friend. We give our thanks to this House for its shared respect and friendship.

We on these Benches recognise the difficult state of the public finances and the desperate need for investment in public services and infrastructure to drive growth and tackle climate change. We can see that the responsibility for the current condition rests with the Conservatives. However, in our general election manifesto we did not duck the issue of new funding. We took the approach that we must find the broadest shoulders to raise additional tax revenue—from the gambling industry to share buybacks, from big banks to big tech. We have tabled this amendment to the Motion today to make it very clear that we believe that the Government have taken the wrong approach in hiking employers’ national insurance contributions as their way to fill the funding gap, and we fear that the present plans will undermine national recovery. We ask the Government to think again.

Our amendment addresses a wide range of sectors that will be particularly badly injured by the NICs increases. Look at whom the changes impact: small businesses—bigger than micro, which get some protection, but small businesses still. These businesses, especially in hospitality, underpin the resilience of our communities. They need to be investing in growth and productivity, not struggling for survival. The changes impact many businesses that offer part-time work, which in turn is often the route out of disadvantage since much part-time work will now be subject to NICs for the first time. Almost every childcare provider will have to hike fees or cut places, forcing some parents to give up work. Universities, many already facing dire funding pressures, are struggling to cope and will face a much more difficult situation. The hikes impact charities of all kinds and housing associations, which should be focused on building new affordable and social homes.

In the course of today, colleagues will address many of these issues, as well as the impact on devolved authorities, town and parish councils and veterans. We will follow with amendments to the Bill in its next stages. However, our deepest concern, and where we will focus our efforts, is the impact on community care and social care, with significant consequences for the NHS. The Conservatives drove this sector into the ground. The Government are setting up the Casey commission, to report in 2026 and 2028, but this sector is in crisis now. We cannot understand how the Government cannot see the harm that NICs increases will do to this vital sector.

Our research has revealed that the NICs hike will cost GP surgeries some £125.5 million a year, which is equivalent to funding 2 million appointments. Hospices, which face a £30 million bill, have warned that they may have to withdraw beds. Research from the Nuffield Trust shows that the cost to adult social care alone will exceed £900 million next year. I point out to the Minister that this is more than the extra funds that the Government allocated to the sector in the last Budget. It in effect wipes it out, and then some. We risk losing many small care providers and seeing large ones cut capacity. Pharmacists and dentists will not receive compensation in full. Surely the Government must recognise that the knock-on effects will undermine their ambitions to revive the NHS; this in turn will undermine jobs and economic recovery. My colleagues will expand much further.

The last Government failed the economy, failed our public services—including the NHS and social care—and, I fully accept, pursued a scorched-earth policy with the public finances. However, this Bill is not the way forward. We ask that this House press the Government to step back and reconsider. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very impressive Second Reading on a very important Bill. I hope that in Committee we can have a really constructive discourse in which we can hopefully find some common ground and make some progress. However, as I look at the Bill as it stands today, I am afraid that I continue to regret. Under those circumstances, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

I just say, in relation to that and to the noble Lord’s arguments, that what he completely forgets is that manufacturing companies faced with this will simply move their production abroad. That is what he forgets.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Maybe I can be helpful by using the Library note on this occasion and a quote that it has from the OBR. The paragraph is headed “Labour supply”:

“The OBR expects workers and firms, respectively, may reduce labour supply and demand in response to lower wages and higher employer costs.”


That is a reference to these changes, including the NICs.

“It anticipates the measures in the bill may reduce labour supply by around 0.2%, or a little over 50,000 on an average-hours equivalent … basis, by 2029/30”.


Perhaps that quote about the OBR is helpful in the context of the conversation going on at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A2) In section 9(1A), after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the part-time worker secondary percentage;”(A3) After section 9A insert— “9AA Part-time worker secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a part-time worker.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab), the part-time worker secondary percentage is 7.5%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “part-time worker” has the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets a new National Insurance Contributions rate for part-time workers.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group are in my name. They break, essentially, into two parts. Amendments 3 and 12 relate to national insurance contribution rates for part-time workers. They are not a request for an exemption from the change but would establish a new rate for part-time workers of 7.5%, so this is a far more aggressive pair of amendments than those we discussed in previous groupings. Amendments 58, 59 and 60 are all about reviews. If I may, I will discuss part-time work first and then look at the reviews, to try to provide some clarity.

Why have we taken a more aggressive position as we look at the situation of part-time workers? It is because we think that we now need to focus on the most disadvantaged, who are finding work difficult to obtain and finding it hardest to earn in a reasonable way to promote their standard of living. We think that part-time workers need to be viewed through a different lens. Traditionally, they have been an add-on side group, and I think that in some people’s minds there is still the idea that people who work part-time either work for pin money or are extremely well paid and need to work only a limited number of hours. That is not the character of part-time work as it is today, and we want this special category to be identified and recognised.

Under the changes to the thresholds in the Bill, in many cases part-time work will be brought into employer NICs for the first time. Currently, a person could typically work 14 hours a week without incurring employer NICs, but that will be reduced to approximately eight hours. It is a dramatic difference. Very few people will be working fewer than eight hours in any meaningful way.

The number of people who engage in part-time work has grown significantly. Today, there are about 8.5 million people. That set of people is overwhelmingly made up of those who carry with them some recognised disadvantage: people with health issues, be they mental or physical; people with caring responsibilities who are trying to improve the family income, as well as get out of the house to some degree; and people recovering from periods of unemployment and trying to rebuild their confidence and work credentials.

For many young people, part-time work is the entry point. Some of them are students who could not remain in education if they did not have part-time work to go along with it, but it is also increasingly becoming a route to the first job and to getting some sort of credentials that will give you the ability to go on and develop a career in full-time work. With this growing sector, we are changing as a society and using part-time work far more.

The Government will be very aware that, as they look at their growth agenda, one of their primary goals is to get older people who have become economically inactive—typically, those aged over 50—back to work. I suggest that part-time work is by far the most likely route for those individuals, so making that attractive, and making them attractive to employers, who may not have thought of employing somebody older who will therefore retire in a certain number of years, may well be a very important part of that strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to say a quick word to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson—in a sense, the voice of the Treasury. This notion of part-time workers as very wealthy people who work only a few hours a week is totally dated. The collegiate group of part-time workers, if you like, is now hugely more varied and much more heavily represented by people in disadvantaged positions. We might have known that had we had a more effective impact assessment.

I have to say that I have some sympathy with the Minister, because I have been complaining for years—this involves the previous Government as well—about the inadequacy of impact assessments. As a former banker, if I had been presented with that document as a piece of analysis by somebody on a project that I was working on, that would have been the end of them working. We need to move to a world where we get proper information in an impact assessment. I do not think it would be to the Government’s disadvantage; it would lead to far better discussion because we would all be on much more secure ground.

With all that said, I am very pleased with the degree of discussion that we have had on an issue that is often overlooked. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Once again, I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on tabling these amendments. They are flawed, for the reasons I have indicated, but perfectly capable of amendment—to broaden the scope from universities, for example. The amendments point to real needs and real hardships that have been created by a Government who have not thought through the consequences of their policies in this and in other taxation.

[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 Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I think that I had reached the conclusion of my remarks, which is that I support these amendments. I particularly support impact assessments.

Before I sit down, I just make the comment that it is somewhat strange to note that we were voting on something in the Chamber of the House relating to boxes in the Royal Albert Hall, but we are deprived of the opportunity to vote on the matter of national insurance rises for every company in the UK. That seems to me to be somewhat absurd.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I stand as a winding speaker but also as someone who attached their name to Amendment 22 from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which I think gets to the heart of the problem that we have with this Bill. To me, the most pernicious measure has been the dropping of the threshold, which has meant that trapped into employers’ national insurance contributions are the lowest paid and the part-timers. There is a disadvantageous impact on small businesses in hospitality and tourism, which are the backbone of so many communities and employ so many people for whom other work is very difficult to find. That makes it a really significant amendment, and I was very glad to attach my name.

I talked on an earlier set of amendments, essentially, about small businesses but also, more broadly, about tourism, hospitality and part-timers. I will not repeat that; the Committee has listened to me once on those issues and certainly does not need to hear me twice. I just make a small comment on why I am particularly concerned about the approach to small businesses, which is that it seems to me that the Government have put in some protections for what are genuinely micro-businesses but do not use “micro” and instead keep using “small”. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, identified the benchmark, which is about seven employees. Then you can start to do better under the changes that the Government have made. However, every time I read about the growth agenda, it requires the upscaling of our small businesses. This, in many ways, has been the British disease.

I was looking at reports from the ScaleUp Institute, which obviously does excellent surveys so you can get a granular feel of what is happening with many of these businesses. Most of them state that the first problem in scaling up is talent, but the second problem is access to finance. For a company that will now have to take on board additional costs—about £1,000 or more per employee—this will exaggerate that problem of access to finance. Many of them will now have to find finance in order to be able to cover the working capital that is engaged in paying higher employers’ national insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his excellent and interesting Second Reading speech, covered some of the issues associated with that credit.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

It was not a Second Reading speech; I was addressing the issues in the amendment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

We will have to beg to differ on that.

I think that the Minister will turn around and say that a great deal is being done for small businesses that want to upscale and that we should look at the British Business Bank. We are talking about an entity that is so small that it really cannot meet this need, so there is a very big problem here to be addressed. It seems to me that the way in which the national insurance contributions increase will work will knock back the effort that has to be made to help people get through what is often known as the credit valley of death, so that they can go from being small to the thriving, upscaled businesses that we need to drive the growth that we need.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I come in just to endorse what my noble friend Lady Noakes said about small businesses and indeed to support these amendments generally. I will speak on my own set of amendments later on with respect to impact assessments.

I founded a small business. Yes, it was a not-for profit-business—Politeia, which is a think tank—but, in 1995, we went through the phase described so well by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of wondering how we would meet employer payroll at the end of every month. From a comfortable position now looking back, we are still not exactly in a rosy situation because, every time policy changes or there are external shocks such as Covid, we face more costs. It is difficult to see how any small business needing to make a profit can do so and expand.

In my case, as someone involved in running a small business, I would say that we have a done a lot of good. It is a not-for-profit charitably funded think tank, but we train graduates and even young people coming straight from school who are finding their place in the job market. We have always paid slightly over the minimum wage once they get on to the payroll, and they go on to do great things: they join the Civil Service; they join the public sector; or they get training contracts and continue working with us, because it helps them to pay the fees for the next phase. We will have to think about that model, because they are going to cost a great deal more. Some of the senior staff earn much more decent salaries than perhaps even the people who founded the organisation do, and we will have to rethink the senior and experienced team because of the enormous hit that we are taking. That is not to mention all the other costs in the Budget.

From the perspective of a very micro-business, this will have serious consequences. I speak as somebody still involved in running it and raising the money. Noble Lords will know that people’s spare money that goes to think tanks such as mine will cease and those people will have to cut their own jobs—that is where the funding comes from. I urge the Government to think again about the proposal from my noble friend Lady Noakes and all the other excellent proposals in this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blackwell (Con)]

My Lords, I will not repeat the powerful arguments that have been made for this set of amendments, but I would like to put the argument in stark terms. What is exceptional about most charities is that they do not have the ability to raise revenue by selling more and putting up prices. Some do, but many are not commercial enterprises. In effect, since those charities can raise this money only through additional fundraising, the Government are saying to charities, “We want you to go out and solicit more contributions from philanthropists to pay for government services”. If the Government went out to the public and said, “This is what we’re going to do”, I wonder how many people would think that a sensible policy.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, because these Benches spoke extensively on charities in an earlier grouping, where the amendment would have overturned the change that the Government are introducing. I particularly want to pick up the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because, like others, I am very conscious that, of the charities that I have talked to, a fundamental part of their problem is that they cannot turn around and respond quickly enough to a measure that is being introduced so quickly. I am not up on all the rules of the Charity Commission, but I suspect that it would frown greatly on a charity spending when there is no clear funding mechanism coming in to replenish its resources. I think that there is a requirement to have several months’ contingency on the books, so there is a real problem here for many charities in having to turn around very quickly.

One of the amendments deals with increases in the employment allowance. That runs into a problem that the Government could help us with. It is my understanding that an entity that sells 50% of its services to the public sector does not qualify for employment allowance, so there will be many charities that are excluded from any benefit that is offered under that amendment. I wonder if the Minister could help us to get a better grip on that, because I think we have all struggled with understanding the application of those rules.

My last point did not occur to me until I started reading the input from various charities. A number of charities that have been able to survive and are fairly confident about their funding will now find themselves in a position where they need to battle and compete for grants. Some of the very smallest charities are concerned that they may get excluded from the grant offering because charities with a bigger reach are now turning to those particular pots. I am not sure whether the Government considered that as they put together this picture.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

This is an interesting set of amendments, given that, in essence, through this policy the Government are looking to take £1 billion out of the charity sector to fund public services, when the charity sector obviously provides public services—so it is a uniquely baffling government initiative. We on these Benches absolutely support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on Amendment 11A and by my noble friend Lady Sater on Amendment 32.

I speak to Amendment 52, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment would increase the employment allowance for charities from £10,500 to £20,000 to assist with the burden being placed upon charities. It is a probing amendment, and I would like to understand the cost that this would have for the Treasury and the plans the Government have to support the sector with the increased costs and the rise.

The remarkable comments made by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and its estimate that this will cost the sector £1.4 billion every year, has been referenced in this debate by my noble friend Lord Leigh and others. It would leave charities in a position where they are unable to absorb the costs and will, as a result, be forced to reduce the number of services they provide. In essence, as we talked about on day 1 in Committee, these services are public services. Charities in this country have become quasi-public service providers in the last 20 years, and it is most unlikely that, in pulling back services, those services would not have to be provided by the Government elsewhere. It is therefore most unlikely that the Government will not wear the costs of this change. It is naive to assume that charities provide some other service that is not a public service or a substitute for a public service.

The Government will be well aware of the severe issues that charities are facing, following the open letter from the NCVO to express concern that three out of four charities will have to withdraw from public service delivery or are considering doing so. This is an extraordinary way to treat a sector that would provide a public service. In fact, the Government have accepted the principle that the delivery of public services should not face this tax, following the exemption of both the Civil Service and the NHS. What justification does the Minister therefore have for the exemption of some providers of public services but not charities? Charities provide close to £17 billion in public services every single year, and the services they provide are invaluable to communities across the country, so a failure to protect them would be devastating.

I support my noble friend Lady Sater’s Amendment 32 and recognise the importance of the Government fully assessing the impact that this tax increase will have on the sector. The Government owe it to charities to fully consider the impact that this will have across the sector and, as such, I hope the Government will consider both Amendments 32 and 52 very carefully as we progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Is the Minister saying that there is a misunderstanding? Where charities are providing services to the public sector above 50% of their revenue, I think, they are ruled out of claiming employment allowance. I do not understand the intricacies of that, but there is something there.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That would be a misunderstanding, yes. I just repeat that all charities benefit from the employment allowance, which this Bill more than doubles from £5,000 to £10,500.

The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax regime. This tax regime is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. Providing further relief for the sector would have additional cost implications and would require either more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I just ask: what are the Government afraid of? This is a sensible suggestion about assessing what the effect might be of an enormous change to every business and charity organisation in the country. If it is such a good thing—we are told that it is—verify it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. It must be galling for the Minister to sit here and be lectured by the Conservative Benches because he and I so often tried to obtain information and were consistently denied it. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why there was not a greater outcry. Everybody just got so used to being denied information.

I am sure that the Minister will also be able to cite many economic crises when information was not provided—I have to say, the silence on the Conservative Benches in not calling out for that information was very loud, if I can put it that way. I am sure that, if the Conservatives were back in government again, we would get the same absence of transparency and limitations on information. There are perhaps two honourable exceptions—the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe—who stood out against their party when every other voice was one that co-operated in that silence.

That silence was part of the reason why there was so much mistrust of the Conservative Government in the end; it was part of their undermining. As the Minister and his Government start to look at reform, which they are looking at more generally—particularly in dealing with the Civil Service—looking for opportunities for transparency would be a really positive move. With information, we stand on more secure ground. Will he consider that? I have asked him that before.

It is realistic to understand that we are unlikely to get impact assessments ahead of the actions that the Government contemplate doing in the next few weeks, or just in the next couple of months, but post reviews are at least a place to begin. They shed light, and they help both the Government and Parliament to understand where things have been effective and where they have not. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept these kinds of requests for immediate impact assessments, will he consider seriously the various requests made in other groupings for post-facto analysis and review?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall just say this briefly: we need more transparency on such a major policy change, but we are not getting it. There is a large negative impact on business and charities, which is—I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes, a fellow-in-crime in asking for impact assessments—unprecedented. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell said, we are seeing a shift in jobs from the private sector to the public sector, which we fear is bad for jobs, productivity and growth. That is why we need to find a way of getting better assessment and having a process for review.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

His amendment is Amendment 67, so he is not going to be moving it until day four.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

He said, “I beg to move”.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

He cannot move it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Problem solved; I am back in my place. Those are the only comments that I wanted to make.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that this is my first intervention on the Bill. I am not a FTSE 100 director, nor am I the chief executive of a great company like Next. I am the chief executive of a small charity in Scotland and the reason why I have not been able to participate on this Bill is that we are going through a consultation process to reduce our employee numbers at this very moment as a direct result of the cliff edge and shock to us of the increases in national insurance.

I rise merely to say that everything that my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Wolfson and Lord Leigh have just said is my daily life at the moment. While businesses can potentially put up their prices, charities cannot. What also concerns me is that because this cliff edge, which is what these amendments are trying to smooth out, is happening at the same time as the rise in national minimum wage, we are facing a double whammy in trying to make our books balance.

What finally concerns me is that this will lead not only to a reduction in the number of those in employment but to a reduction of skills in these organisations. These things cannot easily be built up again, should the situation change. Give us time to implement and do the things that we need to do. I urge the Minister to listen to my colleagues and do all that he can to soften this terrible blow.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches are not in the same place as those on the Conservative Benches in taking the position outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, to seek a delay before these measures are introduced. We are opposed to their introduction. We supported a regret Motion at Second Reading and those on the Committee who were present in the first two days will know that we moved a series of amendments essentially to halt the increase in employers’ NICs, and the related changes, in its tracks. In the case of part-timers, we went beyond that and sought to have employers’ NICs halved from their current level because of the importance of dealing with disadvantaged people, the hospitality industry and other reasons. In the first two days of Committee, I and my colleagues talked extensively and made our substantive and detailed arguments. I know that the Committee will not want to hear me repeat all those, so I merely say that we stand our ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we consider these areas so important that employers’ national insurance contributions should not be changed from the current formula. Our position remains unchanged. We discussed it extensively in both substance and detail on the first two days in Committee, and I would not try the Committee’s patience by repeating all the arguments that were made from these Benches.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support these important amendments. Today, all three and four year-olds in England are entitled to free education before they start school full time at the age of five. In the year 2023-24, there were almost 23 children for every teacher—the highest ratio thus far. If we continue with this measure without amendment, we will see an even higher ratio, with the number of adults declining because of the costs, as we heard previously in Committee and again today. We have 3,100 nursery schools and 11,700 day nurseries, and they play an integral part in the induction of little people into the world of education. They are vital to the well-being of the child and, indeed, to parents being able to pay their way with confidence that their children are receiving an early years education. I urge the Minister to provide an exemption, or to ensure in one way or another that early years education and care providers, whether in a nursery school, a day nursery or another system—voluntary and independent, as well as public sector—are prevented from losing teachers due to the additional costs.

I echo what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said. I would be very happy with an increased employment allowance. We need an impact assessment, given the large number of people employed in this sector and the impact this measure will have on children’s education later in life. We are now paying the price of the Covid lockdown, with the children who passed through schooling at that age. Let us stop making things difficult for early years provision and try to improve it, not disimprove it by such a measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is the average salary bill, so the noble Lord is right that an increase in the employment allowance would not absorb all the extra costs.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I think the term “rounding error” might apply.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Obviously, for smaller bodies, the employment allowance is, as the Minister has said on several occasions, helpful because it alleviates the cost of the changes. Therefore, looking at the employment allowance is another way of coming at the issue, which is one of the reasons why we have put it forward for discussion.

Despite the fact that many hospices provide functions that would otherwise need to be provided by the NHS or social care, the Government have failed to recognise their importance and are instead taxing the hospices that the country relies on. Although hospices do not charge for their services, they receive only one-third of their funding from the Government and rely on charitable donations for the remainder of their income. This will place unnecessary and costly additional pressures on their finances at a time when demand for hospice care is growing. The Government seem to be unaware of the great help hospices provide and the fact that they reduce pressure on the NHS by providing services in a more efficient and effective way. There is a saving there to offset any cost.

While I am aware that the Minister claims that the already published impact note is enough, I have not heard another noble Lord agree with that. Although I am sure he will respond in a similar manner, the current note is simply not sufficient and does not include any impact assessment on the very businesses it is being imposed on. That is very concerning for hospices which do so much work to support the NHS and could well be bankrupted by this Government’s decision to introduce the jobs charge. The charity for children’s hospices, Together for Short Lives, has estimated that this tax rate will cost an additional £133,966 for every children’s hospice. That is an extraordinarily high number for a sector that is not profit-orientated, and I am concerned about that impact. Although I welcome the £100 million in funding that the Government have announced for hospice improvements, that money will not help with the staffing costs that these hospices will now face.

As my noble friend Lady Monckton said, hospices are life affirming and give wide support beyond the patients in the hospices to the families in their grief. They are a vital part of the palliative care system, as I hope the Minister will agree. I think that the Government will be blamed if hospices go into a downward spiral as a result of these extra costs in April. They should look again at some way of helping them, whether it is an exemption, a delay, a change to the employment allowance or some form of compensation. It is an important matter that we should address in this Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend and his amendment, which is important. If the Minister will forgive me, we hear the same reply all the time. I do not think that HMRC’s figures, the Budget assessment or the OBR figures that we were given in November or December provide adequate information to sectors facing huge job losses. They need to plan ahead, and these assessments may spur the Government if it is written down in black and white that these jobs will go.

The economist Liam Halligan pointed out in his weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend that, according to S&P’s bellwether PMI index of business leaders, firms are cutting jobs at the fastest rate since the financial crisis. He writes that there was a 47,000 drop in payroll employees in December, the biggest monthly fall since lockdown. Those figures were tallied after Sainsbury’s announced 3,000 job losses. At the same time, he wrote that personal insolvencies in England and Wales were up by 14% in 2024, with a huge spike after the Budget. UK company liquidations surged. In 2024, 3,230 companies were shut down under the courts.

Last week, I mentioned the impact on the retail sector. I will not go through it, but it is estimated that as a result of the Budget entirely, which includes the NIC costs, £7 billion will go out of the retail sector. Those figures are staggering. I cannot accept the Government’s blithe assessment. I know that the Minister is sticking to the Treasury line with the statement that the impact assessments published so far are in line with what has been published in the past. We are dealing with a different sort of measure in this NIC Bill. I have been in the House of Lords only since November 2022, but it is the first time in my experience here that we have faced a measure where it is clear to all concerned that there will be job losses on a significant scale. Surely, that should spur the Government to want to provide some kind of impact breakdown for the different sectors, whether they are the charitable, voluntary or caring sectors or in the only area where we will see growth, the private sector. If the Chancellor is so convinced and she and the Government are keen and will produce growth, they should recognise that this will come from the private sector. It does not come from growing the public sector. I hope the Minister will support or think again, as my noble friend proposes, on retail.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, again, we discussed this area extensively over the first two days in Committee. I particularly recommend to the Committee the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The Government have put in place protection for microbusinesses. I think the calculation by the noble Lord was right, basically, that it is up to about seven employees. His proposals would put in significant protection for small businesses, those just up from micro and those potentially at the beginning of scale-up, which we need so much in this area. The noble Lord is now in his place, and I am delighted to make those comments in his presence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fleet (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest’s Amendment 31. My noble friend is a tireless and brave campaigner in the charity sector, and she has spoken so movingly today about this Bill.

I declare my interests as listed in the register. I am a council member of Arts Council England and the chair and co-founder of the London Music Fund, a charity that provides music scholarships for talented children from low-income, disadvantaged backgrounds.

I have not previously spoken on this Bill but, as a passionate supporter of the arts and creative industries, I speak today for one very good reason: the national insurance increase will be devastating for the arts, which are, of course, great contributors to the hospitality and tourism sectors. Even Sir Nicholas Hytner, probably the greatest director of his generation, has said that this Government are doing more harm than good. Artistic enterprises will fold. Theatres, arts venues, museums, orchestras, music charities, conservatoires and dance and opera companies are all reeling as they work out exactly what the impact will be. The National Theatre, for example, reckons that it faces an annual bill of £1.1 million in addition to the minimum wage rise.

A report in The Stage newsletter recently calculated the overall impact on theatres. The cost averages out at about £100,000 per theatre, with the double whammy of NI and minimum wage. The Theatre Trust estimates that there are more than 1,100 theatres across the UK. Thus, a conservative estimate is a cut of £100 million to UK theatre, spread across the subsidised and commercial sectors. As Alistair Smith writes in The Stage, if the Government had instead announced a cut of £100 million to theatre funding at the Budget,

“the entire sector would be up in arms”.

Indeed, every budget is being revised and the reality is hitting home: smaller casts, fewer risks to be taken, redundancies and lower employment levels.

The Society of London Theatre estimates that 40% of theatres and performing arts venues are at risk of closure over the next five years. The larger arts venues will be clobbered by national insurance bills: £750,000 for the Southbank Centre; more than £1.5 million for the Royal Opera House; and £280,000 for the Opera North company. Two-thirds of museums are concerned about funding shortfalls. Think of the tourists who go to our great museums every year. So much for growth, levelling up and supporting the arts. Music services central to the delivery of music education to primary and secondary schools will, according to Music Mark, be hit by a bill of around £7.5 million.

This Government once trumpeted their support for the arts—how that was welcomed—but now we know that those soothing words were empty and meaningless. All arts charities slog away at raising funds from generous donors, and now some of that hard-won cash will just go into the Treasury’s coffers. This is money that was raised in the expectation of supporting creativity, access for low-income audiences and children, and so much more. This Government are no friend of the arts. It is a shameful betrayal.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, again, in the first two days we had an extensive discussion of the hospitality, leisure and tourism sectors. Once again, we stress the importance of tackling part-time work as a mechanism to keep these sectors from suffering the full impact of the Government’s changes, so I will not repeat that for about the fourth time today. We continue to be of the view that simply talking about impact assessments and employment allowances do not get us where we need to be. I am afraid that this is an issue of exemption, and the noble Lord knows that on part-time work, I feel very much that we should be reducing employers’ national insurance contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

We have established that an epistle will be oncoming from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I am glad he has clarified that. I just think—

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Perhaps I may interrupt. I really think it was appropriate that we did not remake the speeches that we made extensively on days one and two. I am sorry if people were unable to attend or contribute on those days, but it is not sensible for us to continuously repeat the same statements that we have made over and over again. We have tried to observe that, out of respect for the Committee, and an assumption that those who are interested in what we had to say would have looked at Hansard.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is rather tetchy about that. I am seeking clarification of the Liberal Democrat policy, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has given me a very clear explanation, for which I am inordinately grateful. Perhaps I can now move on to speak to my Amendment 34.

I heard the Minister and, notwithstanding what colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have said, I still think that he did not adequately address the issue of the data and the response since the Budget on this particular policy with this particular healthcare sector. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made a very cogent and valid point that it is not good enough to just keep saying, “We have no intention of publishing an impact assessment; that is the end of the debate”. That is not discharging the proper fiduciary duty of Ministers to make sure that they are pursuing the correct financial policies and know the impact they will have on individuals in the NHS and wider healthcare sector. That needs to be looked at again; perhaps it will be.

While I am on my feet, for the avoidance of doubt, I did attend on previous days in Committee. I was there, and I moved an amendment on day one, I think, should noble Lords want to read Hansard. With that caveat made, I feel duty bound to beg leave to withdraw my amendment, subject to further discussion on Report.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

The Minister has frequently asked, not unreasonably, how it will all be paid for. I have made suggestions, including DST, a digital services tax. Interestingly, on the front page of the Times business pages today, and probably other journals as well, is the news that the Americans are going to put VAT on low-value consignments from the EU—bizarrely, two days after I mentioned it. There are opportunities to raise revenue elsewhere, apart from the NIC carve-out, which the Government might make. The purpose of having Bills reviewed in your Lordships’ House is to give the Government time to pause and consider. Are the Government really going to ask Peers of all parties and none to vote against such an amendment, knowing the damage this will do to people in the sector? I suspect that every constituency in the country has a care home that is going to suffer. This is the moment for the Government to think again and I very much hope they will be minded to do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking here as a winding speaker. The Committee will know that, on Monday, we discussed this whole sector in great detail, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has echoed the numbers and essentially the substance of that first discussion.

We on these Benches take a very different conclusion about an impact assessment with a potential delay attached and £10,000 per institution. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, gave an example of one of his particular interests facing a £1.1 million additional charge, so I do not think that £10,000 is going to make a ha’porth of difference to it. We think that the proposals are completely inadequate. We have always said that we need the exclusion of this whole sector from the changes in the NICs levies, and on that we stand our ground.

I shall say again to the Minister, who often replies that the Government have given an extra £600 million to this sector, that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and I have exactly the same figures, and the cost of the NICs Bill alone for this sector, according to the Nuffield Trust, is £900 million. So we are already £300 million behind, and that £600 million was meant to fill a whole lot of other cost gaps that continue for this sector, which is so crucial to our society.

I was interested to listen to the Conservatives on this issue. I was looking it up today: migrant workers make up 32% of care workers in England. Those figures are from November 2024. As I understand the policy announcement today, I am sure that the Conservative Party thinks that these are wonderful people to be able to look after our elderly and empty the bedpans, but they will be throwing them out of the country as soon as they have finished work, because they will not be permitted to become British citizens. So to me there is some interesting contradiction in this respect for the individuals and the assessment that they are not fit to be British. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, sees no conflict in that, but I suspect that many others will see it, and I am sure that my party does: when we tell these people that they are valued and respected, we really mean it.

Once again, we do not think that these amendments are adequate to the need, and we stand our ground on the amendments that we first moved—but then, of course, under Committee rules, withdrew—on Monday.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall address the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seek to increase the value of the employment allowance for those providing social care, and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seeks to require the laying in Parliament of an impact assessment on social care providers 12 months after commencement and every 12 months subsequently.

As a result of the measures in this Bill, combined with wider Budget measures, the Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care. This funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector. Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors would introduce new pressures that would require either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. It would also add complexity to the tax system.

The Government of course carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have said previously, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its 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 previous changes to national insurance and taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments. In light of those points, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

In responding to the first group of amendments on our first day of Committee, the Minister made a virtue of this Bill simplifying the employment allowance. He said that any amendments trying to introduce sector-based exemptions were “incoherent”. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has argued that exemptions from this Bill should not be made because they make more complex a tax system that is already noted for its complexity. My Amendments 55 and 56 would reduce complexity and introduce more simplification. I commend them to the Minister on that basis, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I think that the amendments we discussed on Monday would have covered the public authorities issue but I am not absolutely sure, so clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful. Can he also clarify for us the protections put in place for micro-businesses? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is usually right when she identifies these issues. It is beginning to sound as though the sector is somehow not qualifying for that level of protection. It would be most helpful to understand that.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her amendments in this group; for her extremely well-made case as to how we might look to soften the blow for public services and the private sector; and for drawing attention to so many areas on the edge of public services that will be affected, such as dentists and childcare jobs. This is where the impact will be widely felt across the country.

On Amendments 54 and 55, the Government have stated that the purpose of this Bill is to repair the public finances. A key aspect of this plan is to ensure that public authorities can continue to operate efficiently without being overly burdened by rising employment costs. By increasing the employment allowance for public authorities to £20,000, we would reduce the financial pressure on them to provide essential services. Increasing the employment allowance specifically helps offset rising staffing costs, which are expected only to grow as the Government invest more in public services.

As the Government focus on boosting public sector capacity to meet future challenges in depopulation, the higher allowance would support that goal. It would provide greater flexibility to focus on improving service quality and enhancing delivery without worrying about escalating employment costs. The proposal aligns with the Government’s goal of unlocking economic growth. The ability to support and maintain a strong and capable public sector workforce means that these services can continue to contribute positively to the wider economy. This tax increase will inevitably drive policy-driven unemployment, which we have talked about, as already evidenced in the recent jobs numbers.

I understand that the Minister believes that the Government had no flexibility when they produced their Budget and made these tax choices. However, as the months have passed, the economic situation has changed and there has been quite a bit of wage inflation. As such, these proposals to increase the employment allowance could be cost-neutral to the amount of money raised, and should certainly not be immediately dismissed as unfunded policy decisions.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, seek to expand the eligibility of the employment allowance to domestic workers and the public sector, and to increase the value of the employment allowance for organisations carrying out functions of a public nature.

As we discussed on the previous day in Committee, the employment allowance was introduced in 2014 by the previous Government. Currently, eligible small businesses with employer national insurance bills of £100,000 or less receive £5,000 of employment allowance, which means that they can deduct £5,000 from the total employer national insurance that they pay on their employees’ wages. This Bill increases that employment allowance to £10,500 from April 2025. It also seeks to expand the employment allowance to all eligible employers by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold, which will simplify and reform employer national insurance so that all eligible employers now benefit. All of the remaining eligibility criteria remain unchanged.

As has been the case since the employment allowance was introduced in 2014, organisations operating wholly or mainly in the public sector are not eligible to claim it. As we discussed during the previous session in Committee, eligibility for the employment allowance is not determined by sector but depends on the make-up of an individual business’s work. The HMRC guidance explains that this is based on whether an organisation is doing 50% or more of its work in the public sector.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked for some specific figures in relation to that. The number of those claiming the employment allowance varies from year to year because the amount of work done in the public sector varies from year to year. It is for individual businesses to determine the amount of work that they do in the public sector, therefore data is not collected in the way the noble Baroness asks for.

The noble Baroness also asked for specific additional assessments. As I have said many times before—she is no doubt sick of me saying so—the Government have provided the impact assessments that we intend to provide and do not intend to provide any further such assessments. I am not aware of any plans for a specific information campaign, in the way that she asks for, but I am very happy to take her suggestion back and discuss it with colleagues.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I thought that the Minister was about to sit down, so I apologise if I moved too soon. I would just like to clarify something. In the situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, where somebody employs a nanny, a carer or whatever else, I have always worked on the assumption that the employment allowance at £10,900 would, in effect, negate any employer’s national insurance on that individual. If that is not correct, it would be helpful for me to understand that. I thought that that was how the micro-business protection worked; if I have got it wrong, please let me know.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I think that I have an answer for the noble Baroness but I would like to double-check it so, if she does not mind, I will write to her to be absolutely certain on this point.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Thank you.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

In conclusion, the Government have provided £4.7 billion of funding to support public sector employers with increased employer national insurance. Expanding eligibility for, or increasing the value of, the allowance would come with additional costs and would reduce the revenue generated by this Bill; this would then require either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In the light of these points, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment. Local government finance is in a parlous state, with more than 70% of funding used for adult and children’s social care, which, due to demographic pressures, is growing substantially above GDP and inflation. In some places, this is exacerbated by housing costs due to the housing shortages across the country.

The latest local government finance settlement has not helped, as the additional government funding is the worst I can recall, after taking account of national insurance, since I became chair of the Local Government Association in 2019. I agree with my noble friends’ comments on this. Yet the financial pressures on local government continue, forcing many councils to put up council tax by the maximum of 5% and, in several cases, to seek additional rises above that. National insurance rises pose a particular burden on local councils. The LGA, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fuller, estimates that the cost is around £1.7 billion, of which around £1.2 billion is indirect. The Government have committed to fund the direct costs of the national insurance rise but, as my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, that does not even cover the full direct costs.

I emphasise that figure of £1.2 billion. There has been some commentary that it needs to be absorbed by suppliers. Frankly, that is not realistic. For instance, in one of the biggest areas—social care staff and care workers—you have agencies that just are not capable of absorbing that level of cost. They will have two options: get a price rise from the council, or stand away from their contracts. We councils cannot afford that so we will inevitably be forced to pay the extra amounts of money.

For example, in Central Bedfordshire Council—where I am a councillor and therefore declare an interest—the shortfall is around £2 million for the direct costs after the financial settlement. I talked to the finance director yesterday and he estimated indirect costs of around £10 million. To put that in context, that is more than a 5% council tax rise will generate. So, even after such a rise, we will not cover the national insurance rise.

That will inevitably mean that we will have to look at cuts to our essential services, the majority of which are statutory—the classic potholes, parks, libraries, et cetera. They are all up for grabs, so to speak. That is just not fair on our residents, who are paying additional council tax and seeing cuts to their services. I support the amendment, so that the impact of the national insurance rise can be truly worked out on a council basis and then properly funded.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I realise that I am very much in danger of becoming repetitive, but this is the last grouping that we will deal with today. If I may, I always feel like cheering on the noble Lord, Lord Porter, every time I hear him speak, which may put him in jeopardy, but it is probably reflected by voices across the Committee.

The issues being raised are crucial. I will not repeat the discussion that we had last Monday and Wednesday, which covered this same area in great detail. However, the amendments put forward then, which would basically exclude adult and child social care, housing associations, charities and others from the changes in the employers’ NICs threshold, would answer very many of the problems that local authorities are going to face. While I understand that this amendment seeks an impact assessment, we go for exclusion of these various necessary services and on that, once again, we stand our ground.

I thought that there might be some mention of town and parish councils in this group, which will get no protection at all from the increases in employers’ national insurance that they will face. We put forward an amendment last week that would exclude them from this. Once again, I ask that town and parish councils not be overlooked in the process of understanding that the public sector will be protected. With the changes that the Government are mooting in going to strategic authorities, town and parish councils will be the only real local government layer left, quite frankly, where somebody within a community knows that community, speaks to the people in it and acts on their behalf. Because they are funded purely through tax rather than through some government grant, the Government have not given them the off-set for the additional costs that they will have to carry. They amount to so little—£10 million a year. The Government would not even notice it. Without that, because they have no other sources of income, they will absolutely be required to increase their taxes by between 1.5% and 3.5%.

These councils should not be overlooked. They might be very small, but they are vital. For many people in this era, they are the connection to politics in a world where there is so much cynicism over politics and people do not feel the reality of it any more. I hope very much that the Conservatives, having made such strong statements on the effect of all these changes, will consider coming into the Lobbies with us on Report.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 70. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Fuller has joined the Committee today and spoken with such passion and eloquence, and I support his proposal for an impact assessment of the costs involved with this Act on local authorities. It was also good to hear from my noble friend Lord Porter; as a former civil servant many years ago, I was amused by his comment about policies hanging around in a drawer. I particularly remember that when I used to go to the Council in Brussels; there were a lot of proposals that used to hang around for a long time.

I agree that the jobs tax is the wrong approach, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson that there are some tricky issues in parts of local government. I have to say that I have often been an admirer of local government, particularly councils, over a long career.

This week the Government confirmed £502 million of funding to help local authorities to cover the increased costs of directly employed staff due to the changes in the national insurance contributions. Ministers have also allocated £13 million separately to mayoral combined authorities, with some allocations to follow in due course. As we have heard, local authorities will need additional support in the face of the jobs tax. I welcome the fact that Ministers have brought this support forward, but we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller that that the allocation is totally inadequate. He called it a £1.226 billion headache, while my noble friend Lord Jamieson, also very experienced in this area, explained that it is just not possible to absorb these sorts of costs, for example, by reducing prices to suppliers. Services will inevitably have to be cut.

I shall highlight some examples where we believe the allocations will fall short. Hampshire County Council is facing a £10 million increase in costs due to the increase in NICs but the allocation it has received from the Government is just £7 million, leaving a £3 million shortfall, which I suspect is quite typical. My noble friend Lord Jackson talked of the likely demise of the lido in Peterborough and of libraries that are closing, although I am glad to say that, so far, we have kept our libraries open in Wiltshire. We are also hearing reports from Kensington and Chelsea and Harlow councils that they are facing a shortfall following the announcement of the allocations.

Clearly the Government’s additional allocations need to cover every penny of the increased cost to local authorities, otherwise they are going to have to cut services. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could commit to engaging with MHCLG to seek assurances about what is happening and how that could be improved.

Councils, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller, have been treated a lot worse than sectors like the police, the Civil Service and the National Health Service. This is a case in point for the argument we have been making throughout Committee where the Government have failed to produce thorough and comprehensive impact assessments. Mistakes like this can be made. The new refusal of the Treasury to provide essential information in debates like this, when such major changes are taking place, is extremely disappointing, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, in her usually trenchant way. The Minister needs to listen to the Opposition when we call for a proper assessment of the impact of this policy on our local authorities. We want to know about other sectors too, but local authorities are this particular group’s concern and we will be returning to the charge.

The truth is that the Bill is very damaging. It will have perverse effects that will reduce the expected national insurance and tax take, as we have heard from the OBR, and it will have a negative effect on jobs, prices and growth. I hope the Minister will think further in the light of these four days of debate before Report.

I should say that I have enjoyed this Committee because of the insights it has given into many sectors and their challenges. It has been an extraordinary cross-cutting debate, and I look forward to Report on 25 February after our much-needed winter break.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

I think the Minister, certainly as far as this debate in this House is concerned, is defending an indefensible position.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief as the leader of the winding speeches. I just join the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, in saying to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Macpherson, that Parliament has given us the responsibility under the national insurance contributions legislation, to come forward with amendments and press them. I am not going to walk away from that responsibility simply because it looks rather difficult.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who talks about simplification, that it is very easy to have a high-level issue such as that, but I am not going to put simplification ahead of what will basically be the cancellation of something like 2 million GP appointments because of the additional costs on GPs. I am not going to sit by and watch dental practices cut back their services, so that we have much more of this DIY dental care that people are carrying out. I am shocked by the rise in dental sepsis alone. I am not going to sit here while pharmacies basically cut their hours and services. I am not going to sit here while adult social care—we have heard about so many cases—basically has to work out how it sets aside the most vulnerable in our society, because that is the implication.

We have heard also from hospices. People are being told now that their jobs are at risk. This is not a hypothetical or some exaggerated claim; this is a process that is under way across the community healthcare and social care sectors to absolutely cut back in response to this increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. We are trying to stop a disaster. When they came forward with their proposals, the Government did not absorb the fact the National Health Service does not work in isolation. It is part of a much more holistic, complex landscape, and if you undermine the private elements of both social care and community healthcare, you undermine the NHS, and that surely is not what the Government want to be doing under these circumstances.

I could go on because there is so much to be said, but it has been brilliantly said by so many across this House. If the Government were to stand up and say that they accepted this amendment, I think there would be a hallelujah, quite frankly. Will they please understand the problems we are trying to deal with? This is not hypothetical or playing party-political games; this is dealing with a really difficult and serious problem that our society is facing. I do not know quite what I can do in a winding speech, but if I can move anything, I will.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I echo much of what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, what my noble friend Lord Ahmad said about it being a pity that the Minister had not engaged more with all those affected, and the plea for fairness from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. This Bill is the most important economic measure the Government have put forward since they took office and, as has become apparent from our debates, especially the detailed examination in Committee, it is a misguided measure with numerous defects. It will hit hardest those sectors that employ more labour, such as care homes and hospices, but there will also be flow-through to SMEs and bigger businesses as they seek to cut costs and staff. We have seen this in action with big names such as Sainsbury’s shedding staff and the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recording collapsing confidence and planned headcount cuts in the surveys.

During our debate today, the Opposition are proposing amendments to reduce some of the Bill’s most egregious effects. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. We have to find a way to limit the impact of this ill-thought-out jobs tax. The tax system is not simple and we are where we are because of the choices the Government have made. The changes are having real impacts on real people in their everyday lives: on charities, small businesses, nursery schools, special needs drivers, pubs, young people and—the specific subject of this amendment—care homes, pharmacies, dentists, GP surgeries and hospices. That is why we are supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and will be voting in favour.

At every stage throughout the progress of this Bill, we have raised the plight of these sectors because of the decisions the Government made in the Budget. They are facing these changes in a very short timescale, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has rightly said. At every stage, the Government have remained unmoved. The Minister has been stony-faced and utterly unreceptive to the genuine and deeply felt concerns of millions of businesses and charity trustees across the country.

We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hope, about the Cyrenians, from my noble friend Lady Stedman- Scott about the sheer scale of the impact on charities, and from my noble friend Lady Fraser about the loss of jobs and skills and the difficulties of deciding what to do. These organisations and others are facing a financial cliff edge in April and that is thanks to the Government, who have chosen to put them in this position while at the same time choosing to give a £9.5 billion pay rise to their friends in the public sector, to pledge £8.3 billion to the amorphous GB Energy project and to increase day-to-day spending by £23 billion this year.

These were all choices, and it is hospices, charities, healthcare providers, early years settings and small businesses that will pay the price. That is what my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham was saying: he felt that it was the wrong choice.

In November last year, the Nuffield Trust predicted that the Government’s jobs tax would cost the independent sector’s social care employers in the region of £940 million in 2025-26, and that is on top of around £1.85 billion more that they need to meet the new minimum wage rates from April. These are all relevant to this amendment.

I am particularly concerned about the hospice sector, and that is why I have tabled my own amendment with the support of my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Howard of Lympne. Both my noble friends spoke with great eloquence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so I will not repeat any of that, but I will say that Hospice UK has confirmed to us that the sector is headed for a £60 million deficit this year. The Health Secretary announced £100 million to make sure we are protecting our hospices, but last week the Prime Minister was forced to admit that that is capital funding and will not have a direct impact on the day-to-day costs. Further to that, I understand from boring into the detail that the £26 million that the Minister mentioned in Committee on day 3 represents almost no new money at all; so, we have a big problem.

Finally, it was reported that the National Pharmacy Association has taken the unprecedented step of voting for collective action in protest at a £250 million hike in business costs that pharmacists face under the Government. If the Minister will not listen to the Official Opposition, perhaps he will listen to the experts, the GPs, the hospices and the charities, which are all telling us that the Government must think again. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: the Government must act urgently to protect our health and care providers, our GPs and our hospices before it is too late. Should the noble Baroness choose to test the opinion of the House, we will be with her in the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A2) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert— “(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the part-time worker secondary percentage;”.(A3) After section 9A insert—“9AA Part-time worker secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a part-time worker.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab), the part-time worker secondary percentage is 7.5%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “part-time worker” has the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.”(A4) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A5) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the part- time worker secondary percentage;”(A6) After section 9A insert—“9AA Part-time worker secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a part-time worker.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab) above, the part-time worker secondary percentage is 7.5%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “part-time worker” has the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2000.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets a new National Insurance Contributions rate for part-time workers.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking everybody who voted for the previous amendment. Such a powerful message is engaged with that statement.

I am here to move Amendment 2, which is different in character from Amendment 1. The amendments in this group are primarily mine. There are a couple there from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which I also support and know that he will present very effectively. The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, in essence, deal with part-time workers.

While looking at the impact of the changes to employer NICs, we became conscious of the changed position of part-time workers as members of our workforce. There are now more than 8.4 million people engaged in part-time work, who are exceptionally hard hit by the changes proposed by the Government in the NICs Bill. People who typically worked 14 hours a week incurred employer NICs in the past; that now drops to individuals who work typically only eight hours a week. Suddenly, there is a huge group of part-time workers who have become far less attractive to the employers that have provided their opportunities in the past.

The impact is especially great on the hospitality industry—an industry that we know is already on its knees. Some 37% of employees in hospitality are part time, and I think there is a view in the Treasury—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, expressed it unwittingly in Committee—that part-time work is a sort of rich person’s luxury; it is people working for pin money. That, frankly, is a completely outdated attitude.

Today, part time is concentrated in the lowest pay bands. It is an entry point to work for many people in disadvantaged communities or with difficult histories. It is an economic lifeline for carers who can work part time but not full time, for students, for many with disabilities and for those who are economically inactive. We have a Government who say they want to take 2 million people off benefits and get them into work: part-time work is the entry point and the obvious first step.

We also want employers to see part-time work as exceedingly attractive, so that they start to add additional support, such as training and career opportunity, to part-time work because of this far more fundamental role that it can play. Instead, we have seen with this Bill that many employers are now openly saying that they intend to outsource abroad rather than employ part-time workers or that they will require part-time workers to become self-employed, with all the complexities of IR35.

As we looked at our concerns for hospitality and the high streets—many in those sectors are the backbones of communities—and because we looked at the nature of the part-time workforce, we made the call to go further in this amendment than in our others and seek not just to exempt part-time workers from the increase in employers’ NICs but to reduce the rate of employers’ NICs to 7.5%. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said in the debate on the previous set of amendments, we had it in our manifesto and have since identified other tax opportunities that are available for fundraising. None of them is easy but, frankly, we would close loopholes in capital gains tax, we have talked about taxes on share buybacks and we would reinstate the surcharge on the major banks.

In the previous set of discussions we had a whole series of proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, who of all people is very aware of the range of possible choices. They may not be ideal, but they are certainly much better than the choice of employers’ NICs, with the impact that is happening. In this case we made that decision, and that is the characteristic of this amendment. The other amendments in the group in my name are all consequential. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, also has amendments in this group, and I am fully supportive of them. I beg to move.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my manuscript Amendment 15A and its consequential Amendments 17 and 24, both of which are supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I am very grateful for their support. I will also speak to consequential Amendments 30A, 31A and 32A in my name. For clarity’s sake, I will not be pressing Amendments 30, 31 or 32.

In short, these exemption amendments seek to protect all small businesses and organisations that employ fewer than 25 staff, including charities, from Clause 2’s steep and sudden drop in the NICs threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 per annum—or, on a monthly basis, from £758 to £417 and, for those who are paid weekly, from £175 to £96 per week. By maintaining these existing thresholds, these amendments would particularly protect part-time workers and smaller organisations including charities, hospitality and retail, which in some cases face increases in their NICs bill per employee as high as 50% to 70%. For this reason, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, with her Amendment 2.

I should quickly declare my interests as set out in the register, specifically as an adviser and investor to a range of small businesses in the UK, including a community-owned public house.

I will come on to the impact of these amendments shortly, particularly in relation to the challenging and interesting comments from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I certainly do not agree that my amendments are designed to reduce government revenue, and I will come on to that in a moment. Surely, this is our role. This is the most important economic policy that this Government have yet to produce. We are where we are, and surely we should be scrutinising, particularly if we feel that poor decisions or poor structuring of these national insurance increases are doing damage to the economy.

On that theme, I will quickly share this: the latest survey from the Federation of Small Businesses reported that the proportion of its members facing contraction in the last quarter, Q4, jumped to 24%, its highest-ever level outside the pandemic. That is up from 14% in Q3. The FSB has also reported that confidence among its membership has fallen to its lowest point in 10 years. Meanwhile, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has reported that over a third of the 2,000 firms that it interviewed plan to reduce their headcount in 2025 through redundancies or recruiting fewer workers. Rather than taking a sectoral approach, for which many others have spoken passionately already, my exemption amendment applies to all small businesses and organisations, including charities with fewer than 25 staff, which, as the Bill stands, face sudden and steep drops—in fact, 45% drops—in their per-employee threshold at which employers become liable to pay NICs.

Just to illustrate this, employee NICs on a salary of £30,000 are set to increase by 30%, from £2,884 to £3,750, for those employing more than three staff. For part-time workers earning, say, £15,000, the employer NICs can increase by more than 50% per job. These are not trivial increases. While I salute the Government for increasing the employment allowance in Clause 3, it is from £5,000 to £10,500, and this typically washes out increases only for micro-businesses, those employing fewer than three staff. All told, the larger the business in terms of employees and the higher the salaries paid, the lower the increase in percentage terms to its NICs.

Of course, I understand why the Government are raising tax revenues—I have no issue with that—but, by placing this burden so disproportionately on small employers, the Bill threatens to do significant damage to jobs, pay and economic growth. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is already happening.

My amendments would help to protect the jobs of some 6 million workers employed by about 1 million businesses and organisations across the UK. Many of these are nascent companies that operate on low margins and are at critical stages of their development—yet they grow at the fastest rate, create jobs at the fastest rate and, through their size and agility, can be great innovators. They are a vital component of GDP and our growth, with annual turnover of some £900 billion. But this group also includes a huge swathe of family and local businesses spread across the country, struggling to keep their heads above water in what have been five very difficult trading years. A fall of just 2% to 3% in employment levels or hours worked in this small business sector could cost the Treasury more in lost tax revenues and increased benefit payments than it would gain from this measure.

Incentivising employment by restoring the NICs threshold would be accretive to GDP growth, the Government’s number one priority. It would help boost income tax revenues and employees’ NICs, and it would bolster VAT revenues and corporation tax. Above all, it would lift business sentiment and stimulate investment.

I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, describing all these amendments as wrecking amendments. Because we do not have a proper detailed impact assessment, that is an unfair charge and I challenge it on behalf of these amendments. I look forward to hearing from the Minister but, with respect, I expect to press these amendments when the time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will address first the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, which seeks to set a reduced rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers at 7.5%. As I have said before, the difficult decisions contained in this Bill were necessary both to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. This amendment would reduce the revenue raised from this Bill, and therefore would reduce the Government’s ability to achieve these objectives. Reducing the rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers only would also create additional complexity in the tax system and, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, create distortions in the labour market. The Government have taken action to support those on lower pay by increasing the national living wage. Employers will also continue to benefit from employer national insurance reliefs, including for hiring under-21s and under-25 apprentices, where eligible.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, which together seek to maintain the current rates and thresholds for businesses employing fewer than 25 staff. These amendments would also have cost implications, again necessitating higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I stress that the Government are taking action as part of this Bill to protect the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that, next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance. More than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package, and employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance.

The Government have also taken steps to strengthen small businesses’ ability to invest and grow. This includes freezing the small business multiplier, permanently reducing business tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27 and publishing the Corporate Tax Roadmap to provide stability and certainty within the tax system for businesses across the economy.

The new clause tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, would require the Government to produce an impact assessment on the effect of the Bill on SMEs, hospitality, tourism and seasonal workers. The Government of course consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As we discussed at length in Committee, an assessment of the policy has already been published by HMRC in a tax information and impact note.

The OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with the approach taken for other similar changes, and the Government do not intend to publish additional assessments.

Finally, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that seeks to increase the employment allowance for farms. This amendment would again reduce the revenue raised from the Bill, necessitating either higher borrowing, lower public spending or new revenue-raising measures. The Government of course recognise and greatly appreciate the vitally important role of the farming sector. Despite the Government’s challenging fiscal inheritance, the farming and countryside programme budget has been protected at £5 billion across the next two years. This includes the largest ever proportion of the budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history. This will accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector, supporting investment in farm businesses and boosting Britain’s food security.

Ultimately, this Bill is necessary to fix the public finances and to fund the public services. Many of the amendments in this group would reduce the Government’s ability to do these things, so I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely quick. This has been a short but very useful debate. On the impact assessment, I think I acknowledged that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has tabled Amendment 38, which covers the scope more effectively than the amendment we have tabled. That is one which I hope we will have an opportunity to support later on today.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that there is already a cliff edge—the Minister has set it at three employees. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, moves this to a far more sensible 25 employees. That is a significant improvement that I hope the House will accept, and that we will certainly be supporting.

Returning to our Amendment 2 that deals with part-time workers, this is an issue which we are going to continue to pursue; we have begun to realise how significant the change is in the structure of the workforce. If the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, were to look at that, I think he would be very surprised and begin to think rather differently over the kind of measures we are looking at here. Providing this additional support for part-time work is very much pro-growth. It ought to appeal to the Prime Minister; he has positioned himself as the pub champion. Of all the sectors that need the support of part-time workers, and that are going to be impacted by the way this increase in employer’s NICs has been drafted, it is going to be the pubs sector—it is already seeing six pubs close per week. I hope we can look to the Prime Minister for a champion who can try and provide us with some support around this issue.

Because of the importance of the sectors and the changing nature of the workforce, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of Amendment 38, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, to which I have put my name.

Given the enormity of the Bill, with its intention to raise £25 billion in NICs, and given the current broad-brush, macro impact note that came with it, it is surely incumbent on the Government to carry out sector-by-sector reviews and within six months. In particular, the impact on employment levels and hours worked in each of these sectors needs to be looked at, and there will be huge variations—anecdotally, we are getting evidence that variations are already there.

These reviews would also help the Government in shaping their industrial and sector strategies. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that these studies are, in his words, “econometrically impossible”; yes, they are challenging, but not impossible. With the right will, suitable frameworks can be established for each of these sectors, and it is vital that this analysis is carried out.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I have some sympathy for the Minister, because, in providing the impact note—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said, had very thin content and was very high-level in general—he is merely following in Treasury tradition, which the previous Government, when in power, also pursued.

The time has come for us to make a stand and to say that we need detailed impact assessments of policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said, in a Bill as complex as this, and which affects many sectors, the impact note has to be far more granular than the kinds of documents we have received in the past. This is also valuable to the Government themselves, because I greatly fear that, within the Treasury, there is very limited understanding of what the consequences are for a wide range of sectors. This is a start in the right direction, making sure that both Parliament and the relevant government departments are informed and can act properly. We will support this.