National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this valuable debate, especially those such as my noble friend Lady Lawlor who have run small businesses. Having heard the concerns from noble Lords across the Committee and from across the sectors, I hope that the Minister will consider these amendments very seriously before we get to Report.

We know that this jobs tax will be bad for small businesses. The Government have not provided sufficient information in the light of all the calls from hard-pressed businesses, so more detailed information is necessary. SMEs are more vulnerable, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said. Even covenants are at risk, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Leigh. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, rightly talked about scale-ups being knocked back because of the problems that they are facing. I was particularly interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and to see his amendments. He had some very telling questions based on SMEs and on particular examples. I think that the Minister and the Treasury should properly examine some of his spreadsheets and, indeed, some of the other examples raised today, such as by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, who rightly talked about international competitiveness, and my noble friend Lord Blackwell, who made a telling comment about the lower-margin sectors, start-up and scale-up.

It was notable that, in her growth speech today, Rachel Reeves had little to say about small businesses and the difficulty that these NICs changes have placed on them. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, we are imperilling their success—their survival, even, in some cases—and the scale-ups that we need for growth. I detected a good deal of support for her amendment, so I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. As I have explained, the Chancellor’s speech strengthens the case for an exemption or a concession to help some or all of our smallest businesses to survive and to thrive. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Sater for underlining my point. It is exactly that. People will turn to me and ask, “Well, why should I give to you, Lord Leigh, and your fundraising efforts, because the Government are going to take away much more?”

According to the Charity Commission website, there are 5,435 charities with an income between £0.5 million and £1 million. On average, they make a surplus of just over £13,000 and employ about 12 people. So the increased cost caused by the raise in the NI for people on the minimum living wage, which is a large proportion of such people, will be £997. There are some heroic assumptions in this, but it is not unreasonable to say that the cost to these charities, on average, will be just over £12,000, which wipes out almost their entire surplus.

I accept that those charities will receive employment benefits, so let us look at some of the larger charities. There are 6,000 charities in the £1 million to £5 million range. Interestingly, they raise a total of £13 billion and spend a total of £12 billion, most of which is on salaries. On average, they employ some 35 people and the surplus is just over £19,000. The extra cost to them will be £35,000, which will not just wipe out their entire surplus but push them into deficit.

There are only 1,200 charities with income in the £5 million to £10 million range, and they employ an average of 104 people, so the extra cost to them of the NI burden is £103,000. Their average surplus is £47,900. Once again, their surplus will be completely wiped out and, thanks to the imposition of these extra costs, they will make a loss.

As my noble friend Lady Sater said, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor, and I note that its letter was signed not just by the NCVO but by 7,360 charities. It employs over 1 million people. Charities deliver benefits to the public sector of some £17 billion a year, so this is distressing, to say the least. My noble friend raised a number of specific charities; she mentioned a local Age UK, with which I do not have any connection. Age UK states:

“This particularly impacts organisations that employ significant numbers of low paid staff … Local Age UKs are warning that these changes will significantly impact their ability to provide essential services to vulnerable older people, particularly in underserved areas”.


In turn, this will have

“a knock-on effect on older people’s health and wellbeing, increasing demands on our already hard-pressed health and social care services”.

I made the point earlier—it was a political point—that the Labour Front Bench does not have as much business experience as it might, although it has many other attributes and qualities. It has a strong and close connection and experience with the charitable sector; there is a good relationship. So why on earth would the Government not accept these amendments to help the charitable sector and save it from these disastrous costs?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Will the noble Lord comment on a different service that charities provide? For instance, my think tank has often been contacted by government departments asking to have a run of research on, say, intellectual disability and its cost. When I ask the official why they want that, they say, “It would be a very good study, but we couldn’t do it for less than—”, and they tell me the astronomical sum of money that it would cost them to do the same study.

Time and time again, we have demands for all kinds of work, which we have done and published, because we can do it, and we can get the best people to do it. People will give their expert advice and analysis for free. The Government, of whatever complexion, will then benefit. Why have this Government and other Labour Governments not done this? It is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Of course, I do not think for moment that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on the Front Bench opposite, does not have business experience, but charities save taxpayers money and provide the Government with many different types of services.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for that. One of the four charities that I chair is a think tank, so I totally agree with her. In this country, the Charity Commissioners are particularly effective and very good at clamping down on organisations that are not proper charities. So we can be comfortable that any organisation registered with the Charity Commissioners as a charity is bona fide and generates good work, as the noble Baroness said.

I urge the Minister to have a deep think about this and consider an additional exemption for the private sector. An exemption has already been made for the public sector, so it is doable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his clarification on the full availability of the employment allowance in respect of charities; he agreed to look into this on day 1 of Committee. The query also related to GPs and dentists, where they were mainly involved in public work; clearly, clarity on those would be helpful too.

In moving Amendment 13, I am particularly grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Altrincham and Lady Lawlor. My amendment would require the Government to publish comprehensive impact assessments and reviews of the impact of the planned jobs tax. This is the Budget measure with much the most impact on business and the private sector. We know just how burdensome it is from the screams of business and charities. It is vital that the Government calculate and share the impact on jobs, wages, inflation and, above all, growth—the Government’s stated prime mission.

There are established procedures for impact assessments on Bills. Despite the Minister’s resistance, I believe that it is a dereliction of duty not to have provided fuller details of the Bill’s various impacts. When we debated the Bill at Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Sater, who has just left, asked the Government about plans to publish a full impact assessment. In response, the Minister said:

“The tax information and impact note was published on 13 November, alongside the legislation when it was introduced”.—[Official Report, 6/1/25; col. 602.]


I have to say, although it is now available to the Grand Committee, the Printed Paper Office had to do quite a lot of online research after Second Reading to find me a copy. Curiously, it did not seem to have been delivered to it in the normal Bill bundle.

I can understand why there was not a huge rush to make it available. I am afraid that it is a very limited document, to say the least. The note includes no detailed assessment of the impact of the national insurance charge on a number of very important areas—not even a split into three between the effect of the increase to 15%, the new threshold of £5,000 and the revenue cost of the rise in the employment allowance. There is no information on the bureaucratic costs in respect of new personnel for whom NICs will be payable. We must have more detail from the Government before this Bill is considered on Report.

I note that, in response to intense questioning from the Opposition, in a parliamentary reply the Government split the £23.7 billion cost of NICs in 2025-26 into £11.1 billion related to the rise to 15% and £17.2 billion from lowering the threshold to £5,000. This demonstrates that the biggest hit in the Budget relates to the lower paid and part-timers, groups they feign to care a lot about. That is exactly the concern of many of us, including the charities that were the focus of the last group. There is no figure given for the rise in the employment allowance, but I calculate from the available data that it will be £4.6 billion in the first year. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that, or correct me. Could he also put on record the three-way split for the five years addressed in the impact note—in a letter to the Committee, if need be?

My Amendments 13 and 26 call for an impact assessment of the Bill’s impact on jobs, wages and growth. My Amendments 62, 63 and 64 call for a separate review of the impact of this legislation on employment, as well as on jobs, wages and inflation, and another on economic growth. While the Government are leaving us in the dark on the detailed effects of their jobs tax, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the national insurance changes alone will reduce labour supply by 0.2% and add 0.2 percentage points to inflation by 2029-30. Does the Minister believe that this assessment is accurate, particularly in the light of subsequent developments and the extraordinarily negative response to the NICs changes across the country? If the Government do not accept the OBR’s figures, can the Minister tell the Committee what his own figures say about the specific impact on jobs and inflation?

At Second Reading, the Minister was also questioned about the impact on businesses. Rather than giving us a detailed answer, we heard the same line from the department that 940,000 employers will pay more in NICs contributions through the jobs tax. If the Committee is to make progress on the Bill, it would be helpful to know exactly which sectors the Treasury expects to be hit hardest and what proportion of employers in those sectors are expected to see their liabilities increase. That is what Amendment 61 requires.

The Government owe it to Parliament and employers and employees in different sectors to explain much more clearly what the effect of the jobs tax will be. Where will it bite, who will it bite, and which sectors will be worst affected? It is a long list—some have already been discussed today—but, looking forward, we are interested in GPs, dentists, social care providers, hospices, small businesses, early years care providers, universities, charities, farms, retail and hospitality. There may be others, but the NICs changes are a blunt instrument, and we need a review clause of the kind that we have seen in other Bills, because of their scale, importance and bluntness. I especially look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Lawlor on the employment aspects.

Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the Government’s own Guide to Making Legislation which states:

“The final impact assessment must be made available alongside bills published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny or introduced to Parliament”.


I know that the Treasury has its own rules and does not like to be held to account on finance matters. However, given the enormous effect that the Bill will have on so many businesses, it seems inappropriate that the Government have not published a full assessment in this case, in the same way that they do with other Bills. The decision not to publish an impact assessment is hardly in line with the commitment made by the Leader of the House of Commons in a Written Answer of 17 January. This was a refreshing approach by the new Government, overtaking the practice of the previous Government. In that Answer, she wrote:

“The Government is committed to ensuring Parliament has the information it needs to hold the Government to account and to understand the impact of legislation”.


Transparency is the route to better government, and it is a pity that the full rules for impact assessment on Bills, with an independent Regulatory Policy Committee review, do not apply to the Treasury. I beg to move and look forward to other contributions.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I support her amendment. My amendments in this group are Amendment 15 to Clause 1, on the increase in the rate of secondary class 1 contributions; Amendment 37 to Clause 2, on the lowering of the threshold for secondary class 1 contributions; and Amendment 57, on increasing employment allowances and removing the £100,000 cap. They are aimed at ensuring that an adequate impact assessment is made available to both Houses of Parliament for each of the proposed changes before the Act comes into force and after it has been in operation.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks to prevent commencement of this Bill until an impact assessment is published for the early years sector.

Delaying commencement of the Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have stated previously in Committee, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note, including impacts on the Exchequer, the economy, individuals, households and families, equalities and businesses, including civil society organisations, with details on monitoring and evaluation.

Further, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook 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 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.

Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. This would introduce new pressures which would have to be met by either more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I also note that creating new thresholds or rates based on what sector a business is in would introduce distortion and additional complexity into the tax system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked for some specific figures. The figures are not broken down in the way that she asks for.

Early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible. That is why, in our manifesto, the Government committed to delivering the expansion of government-funded childcare for working parents and to opening 3,000 new or expanded nurseries through upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector.

Despite the very challenging fiscal circumstances the Government inherited, at the Budget the Chancellor announced significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver government-funded childcare places. This means that total funding will rise to more than £8 billion in 2025-26.

In light of these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 30 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest and to support Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

Amendment 30 would delay the commencement of Clause 2 until an impact assessment had been published fully to assess the impact this tax will have on the retail sector, and Amendment 51 increases the employment allowance to £20,000 for that sector.

Retail is important because so many people work in it, not people on average or in aggregate in a Treasury forecast, but hundreds of thousands of individuals, some young, some in their first job, some working part time—as well as their families, their neighbourhoods and their customers—where they bring joy to themselves and to others every day. We know that this Bill will lead to job losses.

When the national insurance increase was first announced, there was an expectation, perhaps a hope, that the cost would be met by price rises or other changes rather than by job losses, but as the weeks have gone by, we know that the increase is being funded by job losses. That is why this impact assessment question is important because part of the impact is happening already. From the initial announcement to today, we already know that the policy is being funded by job losses, so the Bill is creating policy-driven unemployment. All of us in this Room share a little in the responsibility for this, but we should at least be very careful in our actions when we know that the cost will be unemployment.

As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others have said, we might hope that jobs will be created elsewhere. We must surely, on all sides of this debate, hope for job creation, but that does not change the short-term impact of job losses. Equally, we might hope for productivity improvements—say, the automation of retail—which is important anyway, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned, but not, alas, if we can help it, at the cost of job losses.

To go back to what my noble friend Lord Leigh was talking about, to where the estimates at best are for those of us who are not in the Treasury, very roughly, it looks as if in retail the national insurance hike could easily lead to a 5% reduction in headcount, and if retail is of the order of 2 million or 3 million people, we could quite quickly get unemployment just from retail of 200,000. If you add a couple of hundred thousand from other areas, we are on the way to half a million job losses that could come from this policy. There was an expression earlier on about what is in scope in taxation and in the tax take. What is in scope here are individuals who will lose their jobs—unemployment is in scope. There are direct impacts on job losses.

The value of our retail sector cannot be understated. In 2024, retail sales in Great Britain were worth £500 billion, and 2.87 million people were employed in the sector: nearly 10% of all jobs in the British economy. That is therefore nearly 3 million people whose jobs will be put at risk due to this tax increase.

One of the great benefits of employment in the retail sector is that there is extraordinary element of flexibility, which allows a great number of young people to work in the sector. As has already been discussed in Committee, those who are paid the least will be affected the most. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned earlier that the cost impact on part-time and often very young workers is a 13% increase. This paints a bleak picture for our young people in the sector. Young people are already a more vulnerable group of people, and I am highly concerned that this tax increase will only paint a bleaker picture for young people trying to enter the job market.

The reduction of the threshold at which employers begin to pay employer’s national insurance to £5,000 will hit part-time employees the most. Given that half of all retail employees are part time, the fact that this jobs tax will bring 1.45 million part-time retail employees into the bracket is a devastating result for a sector that often employs young people.

The retail sector has responded with outcries at this tax that will be imposed upon it, with 81 major retailers writing to the Chancellor expressing concern over the impact the tax will have on the sector that typically operates with a 3% to 5% profit margin. In a survey done by the British Retail Consortium, 56% of chief financial officers said they would reduce the number of hours and overtime they offered their employees. This is why this is a jobs tax because businesses will be forced to cut costs in order to continue, and as such, it will hit workers the most.

I am concerned not only about the impact this tax raid will have on workers but about the impact consumers will face given the survey I mentioned above, where 67% of retailers responded that they would be forced to raise prices.

We in this Room are all aware of the impact that this tax increase will have and of the inevitable factor of creating unemployment. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this issue, and I beg to move.

[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 ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this, the third day of Committee on this very important Bill. I say at the outset to the Minister and noble Lords that, again, this is a commencement amendment and does not seek in any meaningful way a permanent exemption to this jobs tax. It is merely an opportunity for the Government to think again, based on up-to-date and more contemporary empirical evidence, so that they can study properly a full impact assessment, as the Bill has an impact on a very important part of the healthcare sector: community pharmacies.

The Minister will know that there is significant concern across the whole NHS and the wider healthcare sector about the implications of these fiscal changes for community pharmacies. The figures produced by Community Pharmacy England suggest that these changes alone will generate an extra burden, an extra encumbrance, on community pharmacies of approximately £50 million, even with the changes in the employment allowance. If you strip out the employment allowance, the figure is approximately £74 million. If you add the two other cumulative factors to these fiscal changes, the encumbrance for community pharmacies is going to be very heavy.

Of course, on its own, we welcome the rise in the national minimum wage—we believe that low-paid people should be paid more and have a decent standard of living—but, remember, these burdens are falling on a particular part of the community. This will mean an extra cost of anything between £115 million and £152 million per annum, according to Community Pharmacy England. If you also add in the reduction in the business rates relief as it impacts on operating costs, the overall, universal impact on community pharmacies will be in the region of £200 million—that is, one-fifth of £1 billion.

Let us remember what community pharmacies are: an adjunct to the NHS, in that they are a neighbourhood health service. I accept that Governments have to make tough decisions; in fact, my own party, when it was in government, was not able to support community pharmacies to the level that we would have liked. There has been a real-terms reduction in pharmacy funding from central government since 2015. The lowest number of pharmacies are now open to the public at any time since 2009, which is 16 years ago: 1,250 pharmacies have closed since 2017. What we are talking about today is a policy decision that has at its heart the very viability of this sector.

As noble Lords will know, doctors and dentists are able to defray the costs of their non-domestic rates by direct reimbursement from the National Health Service. That is not the case with pharmacies; in fact, 90% of pharmacies’ work contracts are for NHS reasons and projects, such as dispensing advice and consultancy—principally dispensing.

Let us think about what community pharmacies do for their local communities. They are a lifeline. Flu immunisation, smoking cessation, sexual health services, alcohol misuse interventions, substance misuse services, healthy lifestyles, diet and nutrition, and generic health education—these are all vital functions that community pharmacies carry out. They take a sizeable burden off NHS acute hospital trusts—clinical commissioning groups as was—and, of course, primary care facilities.

They cannot put their prices up. Because they are locked into contractual arrangements, which are fixed, they cannot pass the costs on to the consumer. Often, they cannot make cuts in staffing or the services offered, or make redundancies, without in effect closing the facility—or at least hugely reducing the service that they deliver. They have, over the past 10 or so years, increased service delivery massively. They will put most public services to shame in terms of delivery of productivity in that period; indeed, they are the safety valve for the NHS.

We on this side of the Room are asking not for special favours or for the policy to be junked but for an opportunity for the Government to think again about the special circumstances of community pharmacies. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made an important point: the impact note that the Minister prayed in aid is out of date. I do not think that it has the up-to-date, topical data that it should have for the Government to properly consider, with the evidence available, the policy.

Incidentally, I should tell your Lordships that, naturally, I support the other amendments in this group: the employment allowance variation amendments, in respect of dentists and doctors, and, of course, Amendment 46 on pharmacies especially.

To conclude, this is about using an evidence-based analysis to create an impact assessment; to review the policy, at least; to inform the fairest and most sensible policy formulation; and to protect the interests of a vital part of our healthcare sector. If we do not do that, it will have a major impact on very vulnerable people who are NHS patients and who use the important services of community pharmacies. For that reason, I ask your Lordships to support this amendment and beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment on pharmacies. We must think of the impact. I have spoken to those who have been impacted already and worry that there is an impact not just on community pharmacies, which employ more pharmacists, but on small providers. When we look at what happens in towns and villages across the country, we see that, when a pharmacy closes down, elderly people, families and people looking for their prescriptions have to take a bus and go somewhere else. The impact on town centres of this sort of change can be quite significant. We have 3,560 independent pharmacies today.

In all of our debates today, we have spoken about the impact on each sector and how it might be alleviated, with amendment after amendment proposed from these Benches and from the Liberal Democrats, who spoke earlier in Committee. Barring retail and hospitality, today’s groups of amendments cover what are usually called public services. They are provided by independent providers. Some, such as the early years and hospice sectors, are charitable as well as independent. If they do not provide these services, there will be greater costs to the taxpayer, and they will do so in a much more bureaucratic and less person-sensitive way. The quality will go down and the cover will be broader; in fact, it will not meet the kind of person-to-person approach that we see offered by many independent providers.

I support my noble friend Lord Jackson because we are talking about people and their jobs: 80,000 pharmacists were employed in 2023-24. As well as them, we are thinking of pharmaceutical technicians, of which there are 34,300. These are real people and real jobs, and they are on top of the jobs that we have spoken about day in and day out in this Committee. I implore the Government and the Minister to think about what happens when people’s jobs go: not only do we as communities lose the services that are vital and which we have spoken about; we see an impact on our streets and our communities, and we increase the cost to the taxpayer—that will go further, in addition to the high hike in borrowing and the tax rises that the Government intend. We will see the further damage that will be caused to the economy. I implore the Government to think again.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendments in this group; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for introducing it. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Pharmacy, so this issue is close to my heart.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, aptly outlined the pressure that community pharmacists are under at the moment and the issues that they face. He also mentioned a lot of facts and figures from Community Pharmacy England and the National Pharmacy Association, which have outlined the impact that these national insurance contributions will have on community pharmacy. The reason an impact assessment will not work is that the data is already out there, in terms of data from the industry itself. On average, every week, 10 community pharmacists are closing. There is a crisis in community pharmacy, which means that pharmacy after pharmacy in communities up and down this country can no longer survive and is falling by the wayside. An impact assessment would be useful only to reiterate the information that is already out there from the industry; it will not stop organisations falling by the wayside every single week.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 35 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Barran and to support Amendment 43 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. Amendment 35 would delay the commencement of Clause 2 until an impact assessment had been published to fully assess the impact that this tax will have on schools and universities. Amendment 43 increases the employment allowance to £20,000 for universities.

The Government have quite a lot going on in education, with changes to private schools, academies, standards, teacher recruitment and mental health services. This Bill introduces a tax on education, breaking with the long tradition of avoiding taxes on education where possible, which are to the detriment of children and society. This tax increase will be implemented in the middle of a school year, which will put the most vulnerable schools at risk, regardless of how they are funded later. The policy has clearly failed to consider the impact an immediate tax rise will have. The IFS recently published a study indicating that, in the 2025-26 academic year, costs will outweigh funding. Since staffing costs tend to take up a large proportion of a school’s budget, there can be no doubt that this jobs tax will play a role in this funding crisis.

I turn to universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has mentioned previously, this tax increase will cost universities an estimated £372 million a year, as calculated by Universities UK. This is quite a vulnerable sector, as we know. For example, Coventry University has shared that the increase in fees will provide £1.5 million to £2 million in additional income, but the increase in national insurance that it faces will cost £3 million. The Government have given with one hand and taken with the other, as universities expected this fee increase to support their finances. Instead, it will be more than wiped out by the tax increase, when universities across the country already face financial difficulties.

Ultimately, our students will be forced to pay the price for these decisions, whether through further increased fees or a reduction in teaching staff for universities to sustain themselves. It is disheartening that the Government are not supporting our young people to pursue higher education. I am concerned that this group is already quite vulnerable in society, with youth unemployment sitting at around 14% in the final quarter of 2024, compared with the national unemployment rate of 4.4%. We talked about this and the problem of NEETs earlier in Committee. The rate of unemployment for our young people is already three times higher than the national average. To increase costs on education will leave the more highly educated people in this group who cannot find a job in more debt than before. In the 2022-23 academic year, there were 2.9 million students across our universities and nearly 400,000 staff. This Bill will have a negative consequence on all of them.

I urge the Government to think carefully about the choices they are making and the impacts this will have across society. We ask them to pause and consider the impact on schools and universities, just to be sure that it does not affect performance, given the vulnerability of young people at the moment and the Government’s objective to increase the number of teachers in the system. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group: Amendment 35 from my noble friend Lady Barran, which asks for the new employer rates to begin after the tax year in which an impact assessment is published in respect of schools and universities, and Amendment 43 from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, to which my noble friend Lord Altrincham has added his support and which asks for a higher education allowance. I do so not only because the education of children is an obligation for their parents, who must ensure that children of compulsory school age are receiving an education—most do this in schools—but because, in this country, with its tradition of support for freedom of conscience as an enabling state, not a domineering one, Governments have gone hand in glove with the right of parents to decide what sort of education is best for their children. In these matters, the state has enabled parents to choose, rather than forcing them into state institutions through financial penalties or totalitarian laws.

That view has been part of the political arrangements for education when, irrespective of who is in power, the tradition has been that, where the law requires, the state enables. Barring the often political and ideological debates over education, it has done so through, among other ways, funding. Initially, it was a grant in the mid-19th century. That was followed in the 1870s by Gladstone’s Liberal Party introducing the obligation on parents of elementary education, but he refused the demands of what he called the “Prussian element” in his own party, who wanted to supersede the voluntary schools and replace them with a comprehensive, uniform state system. Thus, he allowed to survive, and indeed encouraged, what we now call voluntary schools: independent schools and Church schools which have educated children in this country for centuries. He expressly supported the right of parents to choose the best education for their children. Voluntary schools would be supported and supplemented by the new board or state schools.

That principle continued to inform education law in this country throughout the 20th century. Indeed, Britain’s history is a proud one. The education of children and young adults was often at the public’s expense, supported by those who could or would pay—be that the monarch, the guilds, the city corporations, the ratepayers or, later, in our own centuries, the taxpayer. In fact, until relatively recently, this country was an exemplar in educating its people irrespective of their parents’ means.

Under Elizabeth I, that tradition was recognised in law at the very start of the 17th century, when education was designated in law as a charity. Under the Tudors, some of the most famous schools had been just that: public schools. Winchester and then Eton were founded by the monarchs of the day to educate, as I recall, 70 poor boys so that their school education would equip them to go on to one of the universities of the day and be employed, I think, mainly as professional clerks in the Church, at the monarch’s service—a precursor to the Civil Service.

Anyway, many of those schools—Anglican, Catholic and dissenter—continue to flourish today, as Gladstone would have wanted. Not only were these schools regarded as the foundation of the education system, they were supported and encouraged in law through public funds. However, even if the funding systems changed, they were never penalised by discriminatory tax, as will happen under what this Government propose, not only in the extension of VAT but in the discriminatory penalty of the new NIC rates.

Despite stiff competition, they continue to be popular with parents, educating hundreds and thousands of children across the whole country. An impact assessment would reveal the true cost to children’s education and allow for a pause before this unthinking rush to destroy what works well and, as we have heard many times in this Room, continues to supplement what the state does and what the general taxpayer can afford.

There are 2,600 independent schools in the UK, mostly catering for the early years and primary stages of school. They educate more than 620,000 children, nearly 7% of UK school pupils and half of the parents who were at maintained schools: 25% in Edinburgh, 13% in London and 20% of all sixth-formers in the UK. They teach well. I will not go through the Ofsted reports on each of these schools but, on the whole, they do very well—better than maintained schools do on the whole, I am afraid, although some excellent maintained schools have done wonders recently; I take my hat off to them. They provide a school education to the highest potential of each individual student—just as the principles of the 1944 Act put it—which their parents judged was right for them.

I understand that one policy of this Government is an ambitious concentration on growing the public sector, with large pay increases—an aim of this Government that may go counter to the priority of economic growth for the whole economy. Perhaps the Minister would like to say, now or in writing, how many of the 28,000 new public sector appointments between July’s and October’s Budgets included new teachers and new doctors. Without good-enough teachers in our schools, maintained or independent, children at every stage of their education—early years and compulsory—will suffer.

Unless the Government listen and think again on these modest amendments, children’s education at this vital early and compulsory stage will suffer, as some independent and voluntary schools will be forced to lay off staff and will probably try to raise their fee income to make ends meet. They are the target of penal taxation, with the imposition of VAT and the new employer NIC hike. They are discriminated against because maintained schools will have these rises funded.

These amendments do not seek to run a coach and four through the measure. They are not demanding the outright abolition of the employer’s new NICs or the employment allowance, but they seek to improve the legislation. Wherever they are educated, we see the fruits of an education suited to the individual child. It is an essential stepping stone to adult life in which the recipient flourishes, and so the whole of society benefits. Education is not only a private good for a child; it is a public good for all of us and all who live in our country.

These are modest amendments designed to assess and ameliorate the impact on the independent sector—not to deny the Government their measure, but to do due diligence and mitigate the damage of an otherwise flawed measure. I hope that the Minister and the Government, in the spirit of the historic Labour Party, will be at one with the tradition of responsibility for the education of the young, in whatever institutions of the country they inherit, and will stop short of a new tax levy that will penalise those institutions and the education of our children. I hope that they will assess fairly the impact of the proposed measure on independent schools and will think again.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 35. I declare an interest as a member of council at UCL.

On the first day of Committee, I spoke in support of my noble friend Lord Storey’s amendment on education, including universities, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, mentioned. That amendment would have excluded specified groups, including universities, from the rise in the employer’s contribution. We prefer exclusion to the delays promoted by Amendment 35. We prefer exclusion because of the disastrous damage that this Bill will quickly inflict on, among other things, our higher education system. We are uncertain whether similar damage will be inflicted on our further education system. Some additional money appears to be promised to FE, but it is not clear how it is going to be allocated. There is talk, for example, of it being used to fund a pay rise.