National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill delivers one of the most destructive policies invented by this Labour Government. I will not deal with the fact that it breaks a manifesto promise, though it does, or talk about its impact on much of the social fabric of our land, from charities to childcare, though the damage that it will do is immense. Instead, I will focus on its impact on businesses and the onward impact on their customers and employees.

First, let us get a couple of things out of the way. The Minister gave us his usual diatribe about the so-called black hole which the Government allege that they inherited. He must be getting embarrassed about going on about this all the time. He knows that the Office for Budget Responsibility has not backed the Government’s story on the black hole. He knows that a fair chunk of the £22 billion can be ascribed to the massive pay increases given to some public sector workers in return for zero productivity. He must also know that an even bigger black hole is already emerging as the economy goes into reverse as a result of the Budget and as some spending promises excluded from it have to be funded. No more nonsense, please, about black holes.

While we are at it, I hope we will have no more nonsense about the Truss mini-Budget. It did not crash the economy. GDP certainly did not crash—in fact, its trajectory hardly budged. However, since Labour came to power, growth has ground to a halt. There was a dislocation in bond markets and interest rates peaked but, as the Bank of England’s analysis has shown, the Bank itself was to blame for at least two-thirds of that, due mainly to its negligent oversight of LDI pension strategies. As my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Forsyth have pointed out, interest rates are now higher than they were after the Truss Budget, whether you look at the short-term gilt rate, the long-term gilt rate or the premium over the bund rate. All this feeds into today’s mortgage rates, and the Government need to own the fact that it is their Budget that is having an impact on today’s mortgage costs. It is very clear which Budget has been worse for people with mortgages.

The Chancellor has dressed up her dreadful policy choice on national insurance by saying:

“We are asking businesses to contribute more”,—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/24; col. 818.]


as if businesses themselves will be paying more tax to fund the public expenditure largesse in the Budget. This has been exposed as at best naive and at worst downright misleading by a host of commentators, starting with the Office for Budget Responsibility and going on through many others. Not a single analysis shows that businesses will be “contributing more”, except in the narrow technical sense that they will be writing cheques to HMRC for the increased national insurance bills. All the analysis points to the impact ending up on jobs, prices and wages.

The OBR reckoned that, even in the first year—2025-26 —60% would be passed on to employees and consumers and that this would rise to 76% by the second year. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has pointed to higher unemployment and weaker wage growth. This is not theory. The Bank of England’s decision-maker panel in December found that, while most businesses expect lower profit margins, over 50% expect to raise prices and reduce numbers and 40% expect to lower wages.

The policy is highly regressive, which ought to worry the Benches opposite. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted the disproportionate impact on employing people at the bottom end of the wage scale. The NI changes mean that the cost of employing somebody on the minimum wage will rise by 3.2%, compared with 2.5% for those on median wages and 1.8% for those earning twice the median wage. The Centre for Policy Studies has taken this further by calculating the tax burden on labour, known as the tax wedge: overall, the tax wedge for someone on minimum wage will rise to 21.3%, which is even higher than the figure we inherited in 2010 from Gordon Brown.

When businesses come to manage these increased costs, the option of lower wage rates does not exist for those on minimum wage, and so we can expect employers to reduce their numbers instead. Higher up the wage scale, employers will be looking to reduce wages as well as numbers. National data are already showing weak job vacancies, and recruitment companies, which are often the canary in the mine, are issuing profit warnings, as employers are already turning away from recruitment.

What does all of this add up to? The pain of job losses for employees will knock on to higher unemployment benefits; lower profits and wages will result in lower taxes for the Exchequer; and all of us will face rising prices which will feed into inflation, thereby keeping interest rates higher than they would otherwise have been. It is hard to think of a more disastrous economic policy, especially in the context of a Budget which could not have been more anti-growth if it had tried.

Business confidence has been in retreat since before the Budget. Businesses are now facing an unholy trinity of national insurance rises, significant increases in the minimum wage—especially for younger employees—and the Government’s employment law reforms. This is not an environment in which businesses will want to invest. Indeed, many sectors will face retrenchment. This morning, the British Chambers of Commerce said that many of its members expect to cut back on investment. The British Retail Consortium has warned of shop closures. Hospitality businesses will be on insolvency watch. This is no way to grow the economy. The Government’s growth mission is starting to look like mission impossible.

The Government must be wondering whether the gain is worth the pain. The OBR calculated the static yield from national insurance increases as £26 billion by the end of the Budget forecast period, but it then forecast that the net yield would fall to only £16 billion, due to the direct and indirect behavioural impacts. In addition, the Government have said that they will fund the public sector for the additional costs which will fall on to public sector employers, amounting to around £5 billion. It is inevitable that the public sector will have to pay more for public services provided by private sector suppliers when they pass on the extra costs in prices. So we have all this pain for businesses, employees and consumers, plus the opportunity cost of lost economic growth, for a net figure which is probably south of £10 billion. That is just two-thirds of 1% of the Government’s total expenditure at the end of the Budget period. Is it worth it?

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

I agree, but adding more exemptions is adding to the pile. What we desperately need is a reform of our tax system that removes exemptions and forces Governments to make policy by deciding which goods and services they are going to subsidise.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on simplification of the tax system; indeed, I have made many speeches on that subject in the past. I also agree that as a matter of principle it is not good to layer exemptions on to any taxes, but we have to see here that the Government have chosen to use a very blunt instrument to raise taxes, so we are faced with a problem. Do we just accept this blunt instrument bludgeoning whole sectors of our community or do we try to make it a bit better? I think that, on grounds of public policy, it is reasonable to make exceptions in order to ameliorate the effect of a dangerously wide imposition of these additional taxes on employment.

[Lord Blackwell (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the easiest way to avoid exemptions would be not to raise this tax at all; then we would not have to deal with the sectors that will be hit hard by it. I very much support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and I hope that it will come to a vote on Report, so that we can all support it. As other noble Lords have said, I particularly want to extend that to other charities, which I think are covered by Amendment 5 in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Is the Minister going to address the amendment?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I am. I said that I wanted to set out some context at the outset. I know that the noble Baroness may not like that context, but it is why we are here today, after all.

That meant taking some very difficult decisions on welfare, spending and tax, including those in the Bill. I recognise that this involves asking some businesses to contribute more and that the impacts of the Bill will be felt beyond businesses. These are difficult decisions—not ones we wanted to take—and I understand and respect the very legitimate concerns that have been raised, both during today’s debate and outside this House. Crucially, however, and I may find myself making this point repeatedly during these debates, noble Lords who oppose the measures in the Bill must be clear. Do they propose instead more borrowing, lower spending or alternative tax-raising measures? That is the key question at the heart of these debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the whole Committee has, I know, great respect for the immense knowledge and expertise in economics of both the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Layard. Laying out a theoretical argument about what happens to employment and demand in the economy is entirely valid, but it ignores what actually happens at the level of the individual enterprise, employer or employee.

In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talks about the impact on a specific group of employees. There is nothing in what the noble Lord had to say about the overall macroeconomic impact, which will affect the attractiveness of continuing to employ veterans if the cost of employing them is going to go up. In debating the previous group, we talked about whether community pharmacies could stay in business, given the additional costs that would arise for those businesses. We have to remember that this is not a highly theoretical exercise: the imposition of these massive national insurance changes is going to have a huge impact at the micro level. That is what we are trying to explore in many of the amendments we will look at in Committee, today and next week. They are not answered by theoretical answers at a macro level.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments surrounding the exemption of veterans’ salaries from this NI jobs tax; the lead amendment was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. This is a helpful group of amendments to remind us—just as my noble friend Lady Noakes has reminded us—that the social costs of this taxation initiative will fall on individuals. Although we talk about economics in an aggregate manner and debate it in the aggregate, there are social costs, and they are very real.

In the aggregate, the Treasury may do quite well from this rise because of wage inflation. Wage inflation is a tremendous friend to the Treasury and will more than make up for the gap that the noble Lord mentioned at the start, which is that we need to find other sources of revenue. Wage inflation is going to support the Government quite nicely through this, but that cuts both ways: obviously, it has an aggregate and fiscal benefit, but it hits hard because the cost of employment goes up a lot. There is a double effect and we are probably seeing that right now.

Putting aside the theory about whether we lose jobs in one place and offset them somewhere else, we know that we were down 50,000 jobs in December; the OBR number is an aggregate loss of 50,000 through this initiative. That is a tremendous estimate, of course—who is to say that it has any better insight than anybody else?—but it is already down by 50,000 in December. It is probably a combination of wage inflation and expected tax rises, but that is 50,000 people who are out of a job. As we look through these amendments, we might pause and reflect. Who are these vulnerable employees? Who is actually going to bear the social cost of this change?

These amendments perfectly encapsulate the problem, which is that these changes will fall on people who are, and have already been identified as, vulnerable in one form or another. Observations about tax complexity may have been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell and, by the way, it is not just tax avoidance that is a burden to the economy. Tax compliance is a burden to the economy, as all forms of taxation in this country have become very complex and are a tremendous drag on the economy as things stand. However, that is how we manage our affairs.

While we look at this issue, we might pause and think about where the costs fall on individuals—in this case, on veterans. The previous Conservative Government ensured that veterans were a priority. They guaranteed that the funding was sufficient to support veterans in securing highly paid and skilled employment in key sectors across our economy, utilising the skills that they developed in the military.

In April 2024, veteran employment was at an all-time high of 89% owing to various initiatives, including the 12-month national insurance relief for employers hiring a veteran into their first role out of military service. This tax incentive was highly beneficial for veterans and business. Following its introduction in 2022, this relief was extended in 2023 and again in the following year, 2024. Following the Government’s decision to impact business through this tax decision, will the Minister at least confirm that they intend to continue this business relief to ensure that our veterans are able to find employment after their service and that businesses are able to benefit from their unique skills and experience?

Our military deserve the utmost respect for the service they provide to our country and, as such, the veterans deserve that same level of respect. This tax will be harmful to these people, and if the Government are unwilling to exempt them, at the very least they must explain how they have arrived at the conclusion that it will not be exceptionally detrimental to the employment rate of veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, speaks again to her amendment, the Minister said that what the Government have provided is in line with what they did for other tax changes. I remind him that this is not a tax. The reason we are scrutinising this Bill is that it is not a tax; it is national insurance. I do not think that the Minister can run a line saying that, just because this Bill comes from the Treasury, the Treasury is allowed to produce whatever minimalist, large-font document, with no information in, that it wants. There is an obligation on government to produce impact assessments for major policy changes—and, my goodness me, this is a major policy change and I do not think we will be giving up this particular pursuit in Committee.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

HMRC has provided a tax information note, as it does for all similar policy changes. The Government have no intention of publishing additional assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

We now move on to the next group. I call Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, before we start on that amendment, it is 7.28 pm and the Committee is due to finish at 7.45 pm. It always used to be the custom that if we would cover only a very short part of a group, we would normally draw stumps at that stage. That is the way it has always been done in the past. Obviously, we do not absolutely have to finish every group, but we do not normally start a quite significant group with a large number of amendments when there are so few minutes left, so I would like clarification on what will happen in this Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

In answer to the noble Baroness, I am in the hands of the usual channels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

I understand that Amendment 17 has been withdrawn in the Chamber.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. In the spirit of good will in the Committee, this would be an appropriate time for us to draw stumps.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

In the spirit of good will, the Committee is adjourned.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 22, 39 and 53 in my name in this group, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe have added their names. I shall also speak to Amendments 6 and 33, tabled by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes respectively.

Rather than taking a sectoral approach, about which others spoke passionately last week, my three amendments focus on the size of businesses and organisations impacted by the measures in the Bill, specifically those categorised as small businesses, which means that they employ between 10 and 50 full-time staff. I should again declare my interests as set out in the register, as I advise and invest in a number of businesses of this size, predominantly start-ups and scale-ups. These are the companies that grow and create jobs at the fastest rate and, through their size and agility, seize the nettle of productivity. If I may mix my metaphors for a moment, these are the acorns that seek to become unicorns or, at the very least, sturdy oaks.

The Department for Business and Trade reports that there are some 220,000 businesses across the UK that employ between 10 and 50 staff—that is 4.3 million of the 28 million jobs in the private sector and they generate £780 billion in annual turnover. However, this group involves not just fast-growing early-stage start-ups but a huge swathe of family and local businesses spread across the country and, indeed, businesses that have been struggling to keep their heads above water in what have been five very difficult trading years.

While the Government have sought to protect the majority of our micro-businesses, those employing between one and nine staff, from rising NICs, they have left all other small businesses exposed to these sudden and dramatic increases. In terms of impact, the Government tell us that 250,000 employers will see their NICs decrease, 940,000 will see theirs increase, while about 800,000 employers will see no change. This has allowed the Government to claim that the majority of employers will see no increase. With respect, that is deeply misleading. The question that matters is what proportion of jobs will attract increased national insurance contributions. I ask the Minister that question. Can he confirm, if he does not have the numbers at hand, that in fact the number is close to 80%?

I turn to the financial impact of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 to small businesses. For businesses of 25 staff paying the national full-time median salary, which is put at £37,000 by the ONS, their NICs bill will rise from £90,000 to £110,000. That is an increase of more than 20%.

However, most small businesses, given their nature and stage of development, pay less than the median national average. For them, the increases get even steeper. For those employing 25 staff and paying an average salary of £25,000, as is common out in the regions, their NICs bill will rise by no less than 30%. For those employing 50 staff at that salary, they face an eye-watering 33% increase. As we know, the main culprit for those outsized increases is Clause 2: the brutal and, in my view, economically illiterate drop in the per-employee threshold from £9,100 to £5,000. Ironically, this hits the lowest-paid jobs the hardest. In short, it is a regressive tax.

Then we come to retail and hospitality, with thousands of outfits that rely on part-time shift workers. For those employing 20 part-timers, typically earning £300 per week, their NICs bill goes up by an extraordinary 70%. I will stop there with the examples but noble Lords, including the Minister, will be delighted to know that I have here all the spreadsheets to prove it; I will happily share them out later. In the interest of transparency, on the impact for 5 April, I strongly suggest that the Government have the honesty to publish these figures.

These increases are of course bad news for the working person, especially the 4 million of them who work in small businesses. They rather grate against Rachel Reeves’s statement this morning about kick-starting the economy. Let me turn to my Amendment 22, which seeks to address this in what I hope noble Lords will agree is a measured, proportionate way to help protect our small businesses. In short, the per-employee threshold would remain at £9,100 for those employing fewer than 25 staff, while those employing fewer than 50 but more than 25 staff would see their threshold reduced to £7,500. Somewhat reluctantly, I have left the £9,000 threshold for all businesses employing more than 50 staff.

By my calculations, the nominal cost to the Treasury of this key amendment would be less than £2 billion—that is, to support and sustain 4 million jobs and almost £800 billion in turnover. I humbly suggest that this amendment would more than pay for itself in economic growth and increased revenues to the Exchequer. Commencing Clause 2 without undertaking a full impact assessment on small businesses—addressed by Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which I fully support—strikes me as reckless.

I turn now, much more briefly, to my Amendment 53, which addresses the increase in the employment allowance. Clause 3 is designed to soften the increase in NICs from Clauses 1 and 2. It offsets the costs but, having crunched the numbers, it does so only for those employing seven staff or fewer. My Amendment 53 would raise the employment allowance from £10,500 to £15,000 for all small businesses employing fewer than 25 staff. This would help around 200,000 businesses across the country. I estimate that the cost to the Treasury would be less than £1 billion. Again, I argue that such an amendment would more than pay for itself in the medium term.

I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the amendments in this group, given the severity of these increases to SMEs and the potential damage to both jobs and economic growth. I have spoken to Amendments 22, 39 and 53.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 33 in this group; I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Howard of Rising for adding their names to it. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is unfortunately unable to join us for the early part of this Committee. He very much regrets that he is not able to take part because he cares a lot about the fate of small and medium-sized businesses.

My amendment would delay the commencement of the Bill, and therefore the extra national insurance contributions, until the tax year after an impact assessment focusing on the impact of the Bill on smaller businesses has been published. My amendment is similar to Amendment 59, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which was debated on our first day in Committee. Amendment 59 required an ex-post impact assessment, while mine is on an ex-ante basis. Amendment 59 also used a rather broad definition of SMEs, including those with employees of up to 250; my amendment is more granular and focuses on the smaller end of the SME spectrum, which is where most SMEs are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, with respect to all the amendments in this group, with the exception of that of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I repeat what I said last time: these amendments are designed to increase the complexity of the system and that is a very bad idea. I can assure noble Lords that, right now, tax-avoidance accountants are sharpening their pencils with glee at the possibility of more complexity being introduced into this structure. It is a very bad idea and we should not be doing it.

If we want to support small business, we should do it directly by deciding what subsidies or benefits should be given. Playing around with the tax system or, in this case, the national insurance system, is a bad idea. I will not say this again, because we have a series of other attempts to increase complexity coming in later amendments—so, please, let us not do this. It is bad for the tax system, bad for the national insurance system and a bad way to achieve the goals set out.

I now turn to the important amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The problem with it is that it is seriously underspecified. She does not say whether the examination of the effects of the national insurance changes should take place in the context of the pre-government Budget situation, or should take account of some measures in the Budget or of the Budget as a whole. If we take the Budget as a whole, the examination by the OBR shows that employment will increase over the relevant period. What the noble Baroness is doing is taking just one part of the actual economic package represented by the Budget and saying, “Let us look at this in isolation, even though this part funds the other part”—the expenditure decisions of the £26 billion injection of demand into the economy in the next fiscal year.

In that context, this amendment is seriously under- specified and impractical. We need to understand whether she wishes to look at just one side of the equation, how revenue is raised, or the other, how revenue is spent. Surely the correct thing to do is to put both together to see the overall impact of the policy represented by the Budget. I am afraid that the amendment is unsatisfactory, in that it is seriously underspecified.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I will briefly respond to that. I am asking for an impact assessment of the Bill. The Bill does not incorporate the whole Budget; it incorporates one policy decision, which is the focus of my amendment. It is clear that I am open to drafting suggestions. I have already spent some time with the noble Lord today in another committee on drafting improvements and I am sure that, between us, we could come up with some better words.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as an employer.

It is incredible to me that His Majesty’s Government should be seeking to impose an increase in national insurance for employers without taking a proper look at what the effect will be. The extra costs will be difficult to cope with for all businesses, but disproportionately so for small businesses. They lack the flexibility and the ability to manoeuvre that can exist in larger corporations. This will be especially true for smaller manufacturing businesses, which are being hammered by the Government from more than one direction.

The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, was good enough to say that it is reasonable to set out the rationale for the points we want to make. In my view, this is important, as the increase in national insurance comes on top of many other things that impede business. By itself, it might be bearable, in so far as any tax is bearable, but, on top of everything else—some of which I will mention—it is a significant problem, especially for those smaller companies that this amendment is about.

Before going into the detail of my arguments, I wish to endorse the comments made by noble Lords—most recently the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—that exemptions that complicate tax structure are a bad thing in principle. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out on the first group of amendments, there are cases where they are justified.

One reason why the proposed increase in national insurance will be particularly difficult for smaller manufacturing businesses, and why an impact assessment is needed, is electricity and gas costs in this country, which, roughly speaking, are double those of our competitors in Europe. This is caused by the lunatic rush to net zero which, among other things, has nearly destroyed the steel industry, which is now on its last legs.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not a Pollyanna; the Government have to raise money to deliver public services and they have to make decisions. We are hopefully not in the realm of reciting the £22 billion black hole. I have heard it so many times from the Minister. He is a very clever man but, nevertheless, even he reiterates the line occasionally.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Occasionally? It is more than occasionally.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am getting gently heckled by my noble friend Lady Noakes. It may be more than occasionally. On a serious point, we know that some taxes are easy to raise quickly; one is fuel duty and this is another. I implore the Minister that this will have real consequences for many years. It is having consequences now in displacement activity that is not going to the most vulnerable people.

I know that the Labour Party would not inflict that sort of upset on people; most people in the Labour Party are decent and community minded, and want to do the best for the local community. I know, having served with Labour Members of Parliament in the other place, that they care about their local community and their constituents.

I would just ask the Minister to think about this again, particularly this case of people who are trying to do their best for their fellow citizens. All these amendments are extremely compelling, so I ask him to reconsider. It will not show weakness, but will show strength, magnanimity and the ability to govern wisely. I think he should consider pushing that forward because it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

So it is important that we have a proper analysis of the employment impact of these measures that looks specifically at the impact on the private wealth-creating sector, as distinct from additional jobs in the public sector, however needed they may be. It is important that we do not simply take the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—that more jobs will be created overall—as a vindication of the fact that this has no impact on employment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I want to comment briefly on whether we should have impact assessments, which has been a theme running through a number of amendments.

I know that the Minister has his set formula, which he will repeat again now. When he responded to the earlier amendments, he talked about finding precedents for not having impact assessments. I will go back and look at the details of those in Hansard, but, from memory, none of those changes produced the outcry that these sets of changes have produced. Businesses, charities and hospices are all telling us that this is a major disaster. So I believe that his precedents are not on all fours in this particular case; we ought not to be fobbed off by the fact that the Treasury has, over time, found it inconvenient to produce impact assessments. I cannot think of anything quite as damaging in the past to large sectors of the employed population and their employers, so we should not regard the Minister’s set formulation as an end to the story on impact assessments.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

18: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “£96” and insert “£130 for the tax year 2025/26 and £96 from the tax year 2026/27”
Member’s explanatory statement
This forms part of a package of amendments in the name of Baroness Noakes to allow for a phased introduction of the reductions to the secondary threshold.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 18 and to speak to Amendments 21, 24 and 25 in this group. These amendments are designed to make the national insurance increases in the Bill more manageable by businesses, as they are going to be picking up the lion’s share of the costs of national insurance in the first instance. The amendments do not change the overall approach of raising the rate and lowering the secondary earnings threshold; instead, they seek to phase in the secondary threshold reduction over two years, rather than taking the “big bang” approach taken in the Bill. The reduction in the secondary threshold is the larger of the two main changes in the Bill, raising roughly one and a half times the amount raised by raising the national insurance rate of contributions.

I should declare my financial interests in a wide range of listed companies, many of which operate in the UK and are therefore affected by the Bill. These include shareholdings in Next plc—which gives me a neat segue into the fact that I was prompted to table these amendments after listening to a “Today” programme interview with my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, in his capacity as chief executive of Next, who argued for delayed implementation. I was delighted when my noble friend then added his name to my amendment, along with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I very much look forward to his contribution to the debate.

I was particularly struck when listening to the “Today” interview by my noble friend’s analysis of the financial impact of the changes on part-time jobs and those that pay at or around the minimum wage. I think he said that it will add roughly 2% to the cost of employing higher-paid workers, but for part-time and lower-paid workers the figure is 6.5%. This, of course, is before you factor in the minimum wage hike, which will be coming in at the same time and will more than double the impact on certain kinds of employees, particularly younger ones.

I spoke about the regressive effect of the Bill at Second Reading and I was frankly astonished that the Minister’s Back-Benchers were not jumping up and down about the impact of the national insurance changes on the employment prospects of key groups such as female part-timers and young people. His Back-Benchers seem to have bought the disingenuous line, which has been run by the Chancellor and, indeed, the Minister, that these extra national insurance costs will be borne by businesses. The plain truth is that employers will not simply absorb the cost increases, as the Office for Budget Responsibility made abundantly clear: employees will pay, in the form of reduced hours, reduced pay increases or job losses. We will all pay in higher prices and, if that keeps interest rates higher for longer, home owners will pay too.

Part of the problem from the business perspective is the sheer scale of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, hitting them in just a few months’ time, at exactly the same time as the minimum wage hike. I expect that the Minister will say that the minimum wage increase is not in this Bill, but the plain fact is that businesses are facing a double whammy. Very few businesses can shrug off an increase of well over 10% in their payroll costs. The likelihood is that businesses will take rapid action to try to curtail the financial impact, but that action may well be suboptimal when looked at over a longer timeframe.

Recruitment freezes are the quickest way to put a lid on costs and they are already a feature of today’s uncertain business environment. The recruitment sector is therefore struggling and will doubtless have to reduce its own headcount in due course. If hours are reduced for part-time staff, that will have a particularly hard impact on women and their families, who are often dependent on the additional income that such jobs bring. Pay increases, other than for those on the minimum wage, will probably be held down, and most families are already struggling with inflation and will be hard hit if wages go down in real terms. We can also expect employers to reduce headcount. This is already happening, as a glance at the business pages of the media will confirm.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is not here today, may well run his argument that this is entirely healthy, because it will encourage businesses to invest to reduce their reliance on labour and thereby increase productivity and release workers to be redeployed elsewhere in the economy. As I have said before, that is a nice theory, but it fails at a practical level. Businesses need confidence in the country’s economic prospects before they invest, and most business confidence surveys are well into negative territory. Many investment decisions are already on hold or being cancelled. In addition, we have high employment at present, thanks to the previous Government, but job vacancies are relatively low and falling. A more realistic outcome, at least in the short term, is that there will be fewer people in employment. The OBR calculated the impact of the national insurance changes as a loss of 50,000 jobs, but it could easily be higher than that.

My amendment is about ameliorating the short-term impact of the Government’s national insurance changes on businesses, so that they have more time to plan how they will absorb the increases alongside the additional minimum wage costs. If businesses have more time to work out the best way to cope, the impact on jobs and pay could well be softened. My amendment merely delays the full impact of the national insurance changes for an extra year, by phasing in the reduction in the secondary threshold over two years rather than make businesses face the whole impact at once next April. I am quite sure that the business community would prefer an even longer phasing in and would prefer it to apply to the increased rate of contributions as well as to the reduction in the threshold. My amendments are an attempt at a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.

[Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly my role as chief executive of Next plc, a company that employs over 40,000 people, of whom 22,000 are part-time. It is a job that I have had for 22 years, which I think makes me the longest-serving chief executive in the FTSE 100. I hope that I am able to bring that experience to inform the debate, which is why I rise to speak to all the amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, to which I have added my name.

I hope that the Minister will take this amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. To that end, I recognise the Government’s need to balance their books, the importance of their doing that, and that the parlous state of public finances cannot be wholly laid at the door of the current Administration. Nor can I see, in principle, why the employer national insurance threshold should disproportionately benefit lower-paid jobs, as it does at the moment. In principle, I can see no reason for that; it is the speed at which the change is happening that concerns me.

The problems caused by that speed are particularly acute because the axe falls hardest and disproportionately on entry-level part-time work, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out. The way in which the change in the threshold works is something of a poll tax on jobs. Poll taxes do not have a great history of success, but the cost of around £600 is the same whether you earn £9,000 or £900,000. So, the combined effect of this increase on a job paying £60,000 would be 2%; on a part-time job paying £12,000, it would be 6.5%.

That change needs to be taken in the context of the rise in the national living wage. My noble friend Lady Noakes is absolutely right that, together, they mean that the figure for entry-level part-time working—jobs in hospitality, retail and care homes—will go up by 13% in April this year. It is impossible to see how this can result in anything other than a reduction in opportunities to join the workforce; indeed, it will result in some people having to leave the workforce. I hope that, going forward, these types of changes and the work of the Low Pay Commission are considered in conjunction with each other. It seems to me that these two changes have come in at the same time without co-ordination.

Unfortunately, this change comes at a time when the employment market is at something of a tipping point. Again, it is no one in particular’s fault—it is the employment cycle—but every economic indicator that I can see, through both the ONS and my own work, suggests that the labour market is hardening. In every single discipline in the business that I work for, whether it is computer programming or product development for stores, the applicant to vacancy ratio is rising.

Let me give a flavour of that. Last year, when we took on temporary staff in the run-up to Christmas, the ratio of applicants to vacancies was up by 50% on the previous year. In the previous year, we had nine applicants for every shop job; last year, it was more than 13. In this environment, the speed of change will dramatically affect the national insurance threshold change’s impact on both people and inflation.

Starting with the social impact, it is inevitable that businesses will have to accelerate their plans to increase productivity. There are plenty of opportunities to increase productivity, mechanisation and artificial intelligence both being at the forefront of those opportunities; but one way or another, that increase in productivity means fewer jobs. The time we have to implement those changes will directly affect the social impact of those efforts to increase productivity. The faster the change occurs, the less time businesses and individuals will have to manage down employee numbers through the natural turnover of staff, which is the normal way we would try to implement any improvement in productivity, particularly in part-time work. Natural turnover of staff is quite high; if you can manage such changes through natural turnover, it dramatically reduces the impact on human beings.

It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is not here, because I have heard him say that labour becoming more productive—that is, going out into the workforce and finding other, more productive things to do—can be a good thing. It can, but it will take people time to find those additional jobs, and time is what these amendments ask for.

Last Wednesday, my noble friend Lady Lawlor highlighted the acute pressure that the threshold change will put on retailers. She was right. On that day, Morrisons said that, in the light of the Budget, it would have to go harder and deeper in its drive to reduce costs. It joined Sainsbury’s, which has already announced 3,000 job losses.

The second reason for phasing in this change is its effect on inflation. Again, it might be helpful if I give the perspective of the company I work for. It is in the fortunate position whereby the growth we are able to enjoy, the margins we have and the productivity gains we think we will be able to achieve, collectively mean that we will need to pass on an increase in prices of only 1% this year, as a result of the Budget changes. Had we not had those margins to absorb the changes, and had we not had those productivity gains, that figure would have been just over 4%.

In other industries, in particular the food industry, margins are much narrower than those enjoyed in fashion retail. My concern is that everything I am hearing from that industry means that we will see price rises in the order of 4%. Were the threshold change to be phased in over two years, that inflationary spike would reduce price rises to closer to the Bank of England’s 2% target. That in turn would pave the way for a faster reduction in interest rates, which is in everyone’s interest—including the country’s biggest borrower, the Government. Phasing in the change would reduce the social and inflationary costs of this increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord set out some figures that are based on his assumptions, not the Government’s assumptions. I have no reason to dispute his maths or the computing power of Microsoft Excel, but I do not think I can commit Treasury resources to checking the figures in his own spreadsheet.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all my noble friends for taking part in this debate and supporting these amendments. They were put forward as a constructive way to deal with what could be some very damaging impacts caused by the Government’s legislation.

I was confused by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, saying that she is against the Bill, so she does not want to engage in ways of making things better. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we believe that what we are here to do is try to make policies better, even though we disagree with virtually all the Bills the Government are putting forward at the moment. Our job is to engage constructively and, certainly, to try to avoid damaging aspects.

My noble friend Lord Wolfson spoke about being able to pass on price increases of 1%; he has an amazing luxury, because not all retailers can do that. At the weekend, I got talking to a local businessman who owns a number of shops. Most of his workforce are part-time staff. He employs quite a lot of people in and around our villages, and in the neighbouring villages, where he has other shops. He said that he does not know what to do. He cannot increase prices because the goods he sells do not lend themselves to significant price increases. The only thing he can do is to reduce hours or numbers. These measures means that our local economies—things that are really important to people—will be damaged by less income for local families. They are having really significant impacts, whether at the large end of business or the very smallest end.

I regret the Minister just saying again and again that he has to repair the finances and put more money into public services because he wants to protect working people. The one thing he is not doing with these changes is protecting working people. I sincerely hope that, between Committee and Report, the Government will think about whether they can find ways of making this Bill less damaging. We are not arguing that the Bill should not exist—we do not believe that that is our role, and we did not vote against it at Second Reading and certainly would not have done so—but there are many ways of softening its edges. I hope the Government will consider that between now and Report.

With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

54: Clause 3, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 1(2), insert— “(2A) If the person is a public authority, the amount of the employment allowance in subsection (1)(2)(a) is £20,000.(2B) A public authority means any person whose activities involve, wholly or mainly, the performance of functions (whether or not in the United Kingdom) which are of a public nature.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give a higher employment allowance to persons carrying out functions of a public nature.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 55 and 56. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for adding her name to these amendments.

They deal with two aspects of the employment allowance: public authorities and the employment of people with personal or household care. We heard earlier in Committee that, under the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014, the employment allowance is not available to public authorities and that the term “public authority” includes bodies in the private sector whose activities are at least 50% the performance of functions of a public nature. GPs and NHS dentists have been cited as among those caught by this definition. Amendment 55 would remove this exception for public authorities so that they would be able to claim the employment allowance and Amendment 54 would create a £20,000 level of employment allowance for public authorities.

The effect of this Bill is that all public authorities will pay the higher rate of national insurance calculated on the lower secondary threshold, but none of them will get an employment allowance. Amendment 55 would give them an employment allowance of £10,500, while Amendment 54 would increase that to £20,000. We know that the Chancellor intends to spend around £5 billion each year on reimbursing public authorities, which are classified to the public sector. Since my amendment would reduce the national insurance costs borne by those public sector authorities, it would simply reduce the amount of money that the Chancellor would have to reimburse in her money-go-round and offer a practical benefit for public authorities in the private sector. This would not be a full exemption, which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has argued for in relation to GPs and dentists, but it would soften the blow of the national insurance increases. If there ever was a justification for excluding GPs and dentists from the employment allowance, that went out of the window when the Chancellor introduced her jobs tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I am not going to thank the Minister for that reply because he has given us no more information and no justification for why employers who employ people for domestic or household care should not get the employment allowance. He has given no explanation as to why private sector public authorities do not get an employment allowance, other than it was put in the 2014 Act. Both these categories are significantly affected by the other contents of this Bill, so I had hoped that the Minister would respond with some rationale for why the Government think it is right that these categories of employer should not qualify for the employment allowance.

This is rather typical of the way in which the Minister has conducted the whole of this Committee. Since this is the last time we will speak in it, I would like to record that it has been more than disappointing. We normally expect Ministers to give us, or offer to provide, information. We do not normally expect Ministers simply to repeat, parrot-like, three or four set lines that are shuffled for whatever the particular amendment is, but that is what we have received. We are in Committee, so I will of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I would like to record that this is no way to run a Committee.

Amendment 54 withdrawn.