National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

Perhaps I might comment on the remarks of the noble Lord opposite just now. I have for 25 years had the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker—I forget what the earlier term was—and I can assure him that it is quite clear that Divisions in Grand Committee are not permitted.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I do not like to disagree with the Minister, but I cannot help thinking that describing this Bill as a technical Bill is rather far-fetched. If you compare the Bills that we have seen in Grand Committee, such as the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which was a very large and technical Bill, or indeed the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which went through last time round, you see that these are indeed very technical Bills—of a short and long nature. But this Bill is one of the tiniest Bills I have seen. It is very short. It proposes two simple measures. One is to lower the threshold at which employers will pay national insurance, the consequences of which were pointed out on Monday. The second is to raise the percentage of national insurance paid by employers on every salary, notwithstanding the raising of a certain employment allowance. I therefore cannot help but think that this is a very simple proposition for this country and a very serious one, and to describe it as a technical Bill is a slight exaggeration—perhaps the noble Lord will agree.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This Bill is significant and should of course be subject to thorough scrutiny by your Lordships’ House. As I said, the Government believe that the Ground Committee provides the best forum for that scrutiny. It was notable in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that she sought to revisit all the arguments that were debated thoroughly during Second Reading of the Bill on Monday and did not address a single question of precedent.