National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateBaroness McIntosh of Hudnall
Main Page: Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall's debates with the HM Treasury
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, I feel that it would have been more sensible to take up residence in the Lobbies, but we have not done that. Another vote is expected imminently but, for now, I call the Minister.
My Lords, in answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, as I have said, the Government and the OBR have already set out the impacts of the policy change. The information provided is in line with the approach for other tax changes and the Government do not intend to publish additional assessments.
My Lords, I rise to speak to the charitable themes of Amendment 5. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as a trustee of three charities in Perth and Kinross which employ people. The number of people that they employ ranges from 30 to 130. In particular, I am chair of Culture Perth and Kinross, which employs about 130 people, which is equivalent to 98 full-time people.
Culture Perth and Kinross has 14 libraries and two museums and, as a charity, we run those things. I have been the chair for nine years. Of course, in the winter, these 16 locations are warm spaces for the people in Perth and Kinross. Although Perth and Kinross has an image which is quite ritzy, it is actually rather a poor place. Statistically, it is one of the poorer places in Scotland, which is statistically poorer than England. As such, we on the board, which is made up of local people of every description, focus very much on that aspect of our community service.
I should say that the local council involved is also not very well funded and at the maximum of its borrowings. Of course, it has suffered from the way in which the Scottish Government have dealt with local council funding over the years. We have a very good relationship with the extremely hard-working chief executive of that council. When we have money problems, we cannot go to it. Our money is essentially fixed some way beforehand. We get a lot from the council and some from the Scottish Government; we get some from generous charities, and we have a few individuals who give us money as well, including some who serve on the board. However, our money is fixed.
I asked to have the figures made available for this debate, and the figure for us is £124,000 extra. About a third of that is the increase from 13.8% to 15%. About two-thirds of that is the reduction in the limit as it comes in because, in our 98 full-time-equivalent posts—occupied by 133 people—we employ quite a lot of people who do a small number of hours, and we made use of that space of between £5,000 and £9,100 over the starting limit.
The board will meet on 31 January to discuss what on earth we will do in this very difficult position. Of course, I have the benefit of having had extensive discussions with the chief executive, and I know what the briefing paper will say because I have helped to settle it. It will say that our options are limited: to reduce staff, which will presumably increase the cost on the Government in terms of people not working; and in particular to reduce opening hours, which will remove the warm spaces that I was talking about a moment ago. I am sure that these are unintended consequences of the changes the Government have wanted to make all round.
I have heard the Minister talk many times about why he has taken the choices he has. I understand that, but it occurred to me that, with this type of unintended consequence and with the detail I provided, there is at least a case for some sort of carve-out for smaller charities, either on the increase in the rate or on the increase in the starting limit, or it is simply to have a delay—
Which, indeed, we are about to have, my Lords. The Division Bells have rung and the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.