National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I rise on behalf of the official Opposition in support of Lords amendments 1 to 4, 8, 10, 14 and 21.

Before I dive into the detail, I want to get a little nostalgic. One year and six days ago, I opened Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024, which cut national insurance for some 29 million working people across the country. What a difference a year makes. At the end of my speech that day, I posed a simple question to the shadow Minister, now the Exchequer Secretary, which was really bugging me at the time: how will Labour pay for all its many spending commitments? I asked specifically what taxes Labour would put up, and called for Labour to just be straight with the British people. Alas, no straight answer was forthcoming, but now we know the answer, don’t we? It is just a shame that Labour gave it to us only after the general election.

Labour promised not to raise national insurance, and that it was on the side of British business. It said that it would deliver economic growth; how is that going? The fact is that the Chancellor is delivering a £25 billion tax rise on jobs across the country. That will stifle growth, hold back British business, and harm public services. This Labour national insurance Bill will, unbelievably, take the tax burden to its highest level in history on the backs of working people.

We are debating a series of amendments tabled and voted through in the other place with the aim of mitigating at least some of the damage to three vital parts of our economy and our communities: healthcare providers, charities and small businesses. Lords amendments 1, 3 and 4 seek to exempt from the measures care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists and pharmacists, providers of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities and charitable providers of health and social care, such as hospices, as we have heard. That is because we have been warned that as a direct result of the national insurance tax hikes, we could see fewer GP appointments, reduced access to NHS dentistry, community pharmacies closing, adults and local authorities paying more for social care, and young working families being hit with even higher childcare costs. We have to avoid that.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Member reverse this national insurance tax change? What spending would he cut to do so?

[Gareth Davies]

If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the record of proceedings on earlier stages of the Bill, he will see that we voted against it. If he looks at our record in government, he will see that we cut national insurance for 29 million people across the country. As I have said so many times in this place, why are we not debating the Government’s creation of an £8 billion quango in Great British Energy? Why are they spending £7 billion on a rebrand of the UK Infrastructure Bank? Why are they spending £9 billion on giving up our sovereignty to Mauritius? Let us start with those discussions; we can then have a real debate.

Lords amendment 2 recognises the role that the voluntary sector plays in the provision of essential services by seeking to exempt charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the national insurance rate rise. Charities with an income of less than £1 million make up some 95% of registered charities and undertake vital work in all our communities, yet this Chancellor will force charity staff and volunteers across the sector to raise £1.4 billion more to cover this tax rise next year alone. Supporting this Lords amendment would prevent so many services provided by the third sector from being reduced, or even removed altogether.

Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 seek to exempt the smallest businesses—those with fewer than 25 full-time employees—from the proposed cut to the threshold at which an employer is required to pay secondary class 1 national insurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Due to the length of Front-Bench contributions, Back Benchers are now limited to five minutes.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 to 19. I want to speak about what makes a good tax system and, in particular, optimal tax theory, which is a topic that is as thrilling to me as it is no doubt to the entire Chamber.

A good tax system is defined by neutrality, simplicity and stability, as set out in the Mirrlees review. A tax system designed along those three principles will raise the maximum revenue with the minimum economic impact. Each of the amendments in isolation might seem reasonable, but together they introduce individual exemptions that make our tax system less neutral, less simple and less stable. The amendments would make our tax system worse.

Today, we are discussing raising national insurance contributions from the largest employers to fix our broken public services and invest in our prosperity. Three quarters of that £23 billion of investment is from the richest 2% of businesses, while we are reducing contributions from the 250,000 smallest businesses.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member talks about simplicity. If that is the case, why is the Government splitting the NICs? They could have introduced an increase on employees at the same time as the increase on employers, but they have decided not to do that. That would have been a simple measure to raise taxes, without creating this complication. How does that tally with his theory?

[Dr Sandher]

It is a pretty well established introduction to the tax system to have both employee and employer NICs. The point about simplicity is about where the tax is levied. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member raises later in my speech and hopefully provide some illumination.

The revenue we are raising will be used to invest in our nation’s prosperity: insulating our homes, rebuilding our crumbling schools and hiring more nurses to care for our loved ones. It is about getting costs down and creating good jobs. It is about rebuilding this country after, frankly, more than a decade of despondency and despair.

The amendments before us represent bad policy that puts that at risk. As I may have mentioned in this House once or twice before, I used to be an economist. I can tell the House that a good tax is one that raises revenue and does not introduce perverse incentives. A good tax ensures that resources go to activity because there are higher levels of productivity. A good tax system introduces three principles. The first is neutrality: it treats similar activities in similar ways. The second is simplicity: it is straightforward and easy to implement. The third is stability: it is predictable.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The hon. Member is talking about productivity and growth. How does he square that with the additional tax on early years care? That care allows parents to work. If parents cannot work and employers cannot afford to bring young people through, how are we going to get the nation working? Nurseries are on their knees and they cannot take on more children, because there are strict rules about ratios and the amount of space each child takes.

[Dr Sandher]

First, there is more funding going into the early years, but I will deal with the tax side as I speak to the specific amendments.

Each amendment seeks to carve out an exemption for something, and I am sure that Members across the House identify with and, indeed, support some of those individual exemptions. However, if we were to pass the amendments, they would give specified sectors advantages not enjoyed by others.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It seems to me that the hon. Member’s issue is not with some of the amendments, but with all of them taken together. Why does not he not back some of the amendments?

[Dr Sandher]

I do not, because that would introduce exemptions and perverse incentives and make the tax system less clear. It would make the tax system as a whole less efficient. I will come to the specific ways shortly.

Let us start with non-neutrality. Lords amendments 7, 12 and 16 would create non-neutrality between small charities and non-charities. That would incentivise more social enterprises to be charities instead of businesses. Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 would create an additional NICs band for small businesses, thereby disincentivising them from growing. Under those amendments, if a business saw its revenue go over £1 million or it employed more than 25 people, all of a sudden it would incur a NICs charge. That is a cliff edge. It would introduce a perverse incentive and reduce productivity and economic growth.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am pleased that the hon. Member is talking about growth. He talks about perverse incentives. What possible kind of perverse incentive could he have in mind when removing a jobs tax from a children’s hospice, which cares for children and families going through the most unspeakable heartbreak? Where is the perverse incentive in that?

[Dr Sandher]

As I think I have set out, the question is not about carving out an exemption for this establishment or that establishment; it is about how we create a tax system overall that is simple and efficient. It is about ensuring that businesses and other organisations are operating more efficiently. I say this to the hon. Member: when the Conservatives were in government, they did not propose abolishing national insurance for all hospices. They should follow their arguments to the end of the line. I will move on, as I am conscious of the time.

The amendments would also reduce simplicity in the tax system. We are not exempting specific sectors or, indeed, specific establishments from this tax. Overall, Lords amendments 1 to 19 would complicate the tax system and reduce stability. Raising rates is accepted policy; introducing special rates for specific sectors or establishments is not. It would make for a less efficient tax system that is complicated to govern, expensive to enforce and more prone to fraud. This is not a predictable way of making tax policy. It is not neutral, it is not simple, and it is not stable. It is bad policy that all of us in the House should oppose.

All this may sound dry, but it matters to our constituents. Bad taxes do not just harm economic growth, but bring in less revenue. That means fewer appointments in the NHS, it means fewer new teachers, and it means less insulation in our homes. We are elected to this place as legislators. We have a duty to make policy that works, and that involves distinguishing the whole from its parts, ensuring we do not introduce loopholes and carve-outs that weaken our tax system, and governing responsibly.