National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is the job of any Government to grow the economy and grow jobs. The best way of delivering money for public services is to grow the tax base without having to increase taxes, so it is hardly surprising that the Chancellor wrapped up her bad Budget as a growth Budget. Unfortunately, when she unwrapped it at the Dispatch Box, it was nothing of the kind. The Treasury’s own analysis said that growth would peak at 2% next year, and then fall for the rest of the decade. The OBR’s analysis said that the Budget was inflationary. It is bad for the economy and it is bad for the businesses that we rely on to grow our tax base for public services.

I turn now to public services, particularly health and social care. The Chancellor knows—and knew—that the increase in national insurance contributions will be devastating for healthcare, which is why she exempted the NHS, but that shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of how healthcare is delivered in this country. The NHS directly delivers a part of healthcare that is free at the point of use, but much of the rest is delivered indirectly through contracting, via partnerships such as GP practices, charities such as hospices, and businesses such as pharmacy, dentistry and social care providers. The NHS cannot exist without those key healthcare services, none of which shares in the exemption from the national insurance contribution rises.

The chief executive of Hospice UK has said that that means charitable income raised by hospices to the tune of £30 million will be taken in national insurance contributions to fund the NHS, which does not properly fund hospices in the first place. The British Dental Association wrote to the Secretary of State to ask whether there has been an impact assessment of the effect of national insurance contribution rises on the finances of dentists. The answer was that no impact assessment had been done. The Government do not even understand the effects of their Budget and these national insurance contribution rises on healthcare in this country.

For two local hospices just outside my constituency, Mountbatten Isle of Wight and Mountbatten Hampshire, which serve my constituents, the combined effect of these national insurance contribution rises and the pay rises for nurses, for which the NHS will not pay the hospices, is £900,000 of costs, with not a penny promised or delivered through the contract with the integrated care board.

It is all very well for Labour Members to say that this Budget will deliver for the NHS, but that is not much good when it will put further pressure on GP practices, pharmacies, hospices, dentistry and social care. If those services crumble, the NHS will not be able to continue in its current form, so I urge Labour Members to press the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to get on with his reforms to properly fund GPs, hospices, pharmacies and dentists before they have to make tough decisions that will mean redundancies and job losses.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

The Government knew that if they raised national insurance contributions in the Budget, it would be devastating for health and social care. That is why they exempted the NHS; they knew that it would be put under acute pressure by the Budget. They did not exempt some of the key partners that deliver health and social care in this country, that they will rely on to move people out of acute care and into community care, and that they will rely on to achieve prevention rather than cure—all things that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care says he wants to do. They will rely on GPs, pharmacies, hospices and social care, yet the national insurance contributions fall on them.

Hospices will pay £260 million. According to Community Pharmacy England, pharmacists will pay £50 million. Social care will pay £2.4 billion. All that money will move across to the NHS, which is largely slanted towards acute provision. That runs completely counter to what the Health Secretary said he wants to do. His answer to those GPs, pharmacists and hospices who are deeply concerned is, “We will deal with this in due course.” “Due course” means “We have absolutely no idea and no plan at all.” He and, indeed, Treasury spokespeople say that they will deal with hospices in the usual contracting way.

The contracts of hospices like Mountbatten just outside my constituency on the Isle of Wight are with the integrated care board. They do not have a contract with Government, the Department of Health and Social Care or an NHS employer. Under those contracts, there is no clause for uplift of salary, or for recovering the increased cost of national insurance contributions. Saying, “We will deal with it in the usual way through contracting” shows either a complete lack of understanding of how hospice services contract with the public sector, or a complete indifference, disregard and, frankly, contempt.

As for other sectors of the economy, national insurance increases hit those who employ people—sectors that rely on larger workforces, such as hospitality and tourism, which my constituency on the Isle of Wight is heavily reliant on. This is a tax on working people, because it disincentivises employing working people, and even the OBR says that 60% of the impact will likely be felt by those on lower wages. It also says that growth will peak next year at 2%—in fact, that is the Treasury’s own figure—and then it will fall away for the rest of the decade. This is not a growth Budget. As for those working in hospitality and tourism, many of whom are seasonal or part-time workers, they will be brought into the national insurance tax regime for the first time.

Brilliant businesses in my constituency, such as the Yarbridge Inn in Brading, the Spyglass Inn in Ventnor, and all the independent hotels in Sandown, Shanklin and elsewhere, will be squeezed further, right at the time when they are trying to recover from covid, and when our tourism and hospitality sectors are competing with cheaper, overseas holidays. The sector is already heavily taxed compared with hospitality and tourism elsewhere in Europe. This is an unpatriotic tax, because it disincentivises the visitor economy and tourism in Britain.

I urge the Government to go back and look again at providing relief to hospitality and tourism, as well as to health and social care. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, there is no shame in the Government recognising their mistakes in both sectors, and coming up with genuine relief for health and social care and for tourism and hospitality.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the chance to speak in this debate on an important topic. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will be glad to know that this is the first speech of mine that is not subject to a time limit, so I can speak for as long as humanly possible on the intricacies and joys of national insurance contributions, and I hope to stay on the topic at hand.

Not having a time limit also gives me the chance to make a great parliamentary speech on this important topic. We all know what good speeches look like; they are not a simple list of points reeled off in order, but may include great rhetorical flourishes, the use of the English language at its finest, and nuanced arguments. But, Madam Chair, I will make six simple points, in list form, in favour of the national insurance changes before us. I have missed my opportunity, but maybe I will make such a speech in future.

These changes are incredibly important. I urge Opposition Members to vote with the Government against the amendments, so that we can get the changes that we need for our country. The first reason that I think the changes are important and sensible is that they will mean that the Labour Government stick to the pledge we made in the election campaign not to increase taxes on working people. It is important that we rebuild trust in our politics, which has fallen to a record low. I know that this is contested in the House, but Labour is clear that these specific changes protect working people’s payslips and mean that we do not have to make the changes that others have suggested for income tax and value added tax. Trust in our politics is very important.

The second reason I encourage Members to vote with the Government tonight is that the changes provide vital funding for our public services. I am not too sure whether Conservative Members—I would be interested to hear from them—support the additional funding for public services. I said this in the previous debate on the Bill, so I am a bit like a broken record, but if they do support additional funding, would they raise it through additional borrowing or different tax rises?

[Joe Robertson]

rose—

[Dan Tomlinson]

Before I have even heard the hon. Member’s request to intervene, I happily give way.

[Joe Robertson]

I can offer the hon. Member a solution for growing the tax base: grow the economy. That is by far the best way of increasing the tax take. This Budget does not grow the economy—that is the problem.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will come to growth, which is the sixth point on my very exciting list, but I will just say that this Budget will see growth increase in the short term and stay broadly unchanged over the forecast period, and the OBR says that the increased public sector investment that we are making will lead to a small but significant increase in growth in the long run. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member that we need economic growth in this country.

It is important that we provide the revenue to fund our public services. I will not repeat the convincing and powerful arguments made by Labour Members about the broken nature of our public services. In Chipping Barnet, policing is really struggling, and 100,000 people in the Royal Free London NHS foundation trust area are waiting to be seen by our local hospital. We need to provide funding in a sustainable way.

The third point on my exciting list of reasons to vote with the Government tonight is that these changes provide stability. We all know that we need economic stability—it is the foundation of the economic growth that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) just made an important intervention on. I believe that the Chancellor and the Treasury team made the right decision, even though it was difficult, to raise revenues to fund our public services and put our public finances on an even keel once again. This change means that over the coming years, we will get to a place where, for the first time in a very long time, day-to-day spending will be matched by the tax revenues that are coming in. I think all Members of the House will agree that that is important, but I know that Labour Members prioritise that stability, which has been lacking for too long.

Fourthly, these changes cut taxes for the smallest businesses—a quarter of a million businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) made clear. Again, I am interested to know whether Opposition Members support or oppose the cut in taxes for the smallest businesses that this Budget provides.

Fifthly, we have prioritised sound public finances, which is a big change from recent years. The mini-Budget that was passed by Liz Truss contributed to pushing up interest rates in our economy, making things more difficult for families in my constituency and across the country. It also added not £6 billion, or even £16 billion, but £60 billion to Government borrowing costs each year—Members can see those numbers in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report. That and other failures to manage our public finances over the past 14 years have driven up our public debt from £1 trillion, as it was in 2010, to £2.8 trillion, which I believe was the latest estimate from the Office for National Statistics. If we support additional spending on our public services, it is vital that we also make the right decision to raise revenue that will cover that increase in public spending, so that we can have the sound public finances that the public want from this Government.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

Lords amendment 21 calls for a review of this policy. I will come to the practical reasons for my opposition to it shortly, but first I want to focus on the cause of the problem and the cause of today’s debate.

The last Government presided over economic chaos, scaring businesses away from long-term investment. The last Government failed to invest in the skills that are required in the vital sectors about which we have been hearing today. The last Government left the NHS on its knees, in desperate need of long-term investment. It will be hard to take the serious steps that will put the country back on its feet, but I believe that the measures we are debating today are necessary. What a contrast we see now: a Government laser-focused on economic stability, a Government determined to invest in skills for the future, a Government who are already reducing the NHS waiting list thanks to a £23 billion investment. That is the outcome of this policy, which is part of a package of measures to stabilise our economy and enable us to invest in public services.

I have to admit that I have been struck by the passion and commitment of Members on both sides of the House who have spoken about important public services. I talk to representatives of those services regularly myself, and I firmly believe that the investment that this Government will be able to make in childcare, in early years, in breakfast clubs, in the NHS and back into local government, where it needs to be, will in the round create the more sustainable public services that we so desperately need.

On the practical reasons why I oppose Lords amendment 21, the OBR has already considered the implications of this policy—

[Joe Robertson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Blake]

I will not give way.

Jobs data is already publicly available that will enable everybody to analyse the impact of this policy, and there has been a detailed assessment of it by HMRC. I firmly believe that this amendment will not deliver on the objectives that our country needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That is absolutely right. There are over 400 Labour MPs, but just four of them are sitting there to try to defend this indefensible jobs tax on our most vulnerable. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Do they not have children’s hospices in their constituencies? Do they not have hospices and other settings that their constituents work so hard to raise funds for? They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

[Joe Robertson]

Perhaps I may suggest an easy decision, rather than a difficult one? The Government, instead of giving £9 billion away to Mauritius, should use some of that to support social care and charities.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That would be an excellent decision, and I am sure the Naomi House children’s hospice and Jacksplace, which do so much invaluable work to support families going through the most unspeakable difficulties in my area, would advocate for that.

I want to talk about childcare settings, which ensure that our smallest but most cherished family members are cared for and given the very best possible start in life. It is incomprehensible that the Government have taken this decision to imperil some of the businesses and services that our constituents most rely on—nursing homes, for example. The owner of one nursing home, with 35 years of service in the Gosport constituency, told me that the tax rises in the Budget will add £90,000 on top of its annual costs. This business is particularly vulnerable because a very large proportion of its bed spaces are occupied by local authority patients. Its costs are going to go up by 12% this year, driven mostly by changes to the minimum wage and this jobs tax—the national insurance contributions change—on his 75 members of staff. The council, which is having difficulties of its own, can provide only a 4% uplift to cover it. Quite simply, this an existential threat to his business, and he is not alone.

It is the elderly, the vulnerable, disabled people and their families who are going to pay the price, and we know that these costs will go to those having to foot the bill. If people are not privately funded, some nursing homes will be forced to hand back their local authority contracts and increase the proportion of beds commissioned privately. Since the Budget, I have received messages from individuals who have already seen the cost of care going through the roof. One wrote to me:

“Directly due to the increases in Employers National Insurance contributions the Chancellor has managed to cause an increase of 7.8% in my brother’s care home fees that are already north of £8000 a month… I shudder to think of the overall cost nationally of this increase across all those with relatives and loved ones in care.”

I also want to talk about early years settings. Early years providers are facing a squeeze that many just will not be able to stomach. Just as care settings have their revenue dictated by local government, nurseries are limited by childcare ratios and the fees they get from their local authority for their 30 hours’ free childcare. Hopscotch nursery, which looks after 1,900 children across my region, has told me that these changes will add £1 million to its overheads. It says that, in order to make up the shortfall, it is going to have to put its fees up by 10%, and that 10% will be passed on to my Gosport constituents. How can parents in Gosport face such an uptick in fees? What assessment have the Government made of the impact that will have on parents, on people dropping out of the jobs market or out of the workforce, and, most especially, on women? At the end of the day, we all know that when it comes to childcare, rightly or wrongly, the buck always stops with us. What will be the disproportionate impact of this on women?

I could mention so many other organisations that are facing the prospect of scaling back their activities. They include hair and beauty salons, which are warning that this will result in billions of pounds lost, and many will shut up shop or encourage staff to go freelance. They have previously taken on so many apprentices, but they warn that by 2027 there will be no apprenticeships left in this sector because they will be too expensive.

The common thread is that this national insurance change will hit businesses for which labour is the highest cost and there is no digital solution, and businesses that are unable to find efficiencies because of the nature of their overheads. The amendments passed in the Lords would go some way towards alleviating those cost pressures. In many cases, they would be a lifeline for the businesses and services that our constituents so desperately rely on, and those that by their very nature are reliant on the public sector for revenue. I urge the Minister to change his mind, to show some compassion, to show he cares, to listen to his constituents and to support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Bill is yet another example of legislation from this Government that breaks their manifesto promises, harms local business, negatively impacts our constituents and limits the prospects of growth in my local economy of Chester South and Eddisbury and, indeed, the country.

Fundamentally, these changes will hit working people the hardest—the very people the Chancellor said would be shielded from the impacts of the Bill will be the most affected. It will mean lower wages, higher unemployment and increased costs for businesses, resulting in higher prices in the shops. Do not just take my word for it: the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that

“additional payroll costs for employers are passed through into lower wages.”

When I speak with business owners in my constituency, they say they feel like they are swimming against the tide, from the NIC increases to the reduction in business rates relief. The recurring message from every company I speak to is that confidence in the economy is down. I must ask the Minister: how is that conducive to growth?

I will speak to two of the amendments. Exempting hospices from this damaging increase in employer national insurance contributions is the right thing to do. I have had the pleasure of visiting both the hospice of the Good Shepherd in Backford and St Luke’s hospice in Winsford, which provide a vital service to the most vulnerable of my constituents at the most difficult time in their lives. They provide the very best care and support, and I encourage the Minister to visit and see for himself the warm, compassionate and welcoming environment that they offer, which reflects the attitude of the doctors, nurses and, indeed, all the staff who go above and beyond in their work.

The financial implications of an increase in national insurance contributions and the resulting consequences for services and staff will be hugely damaging. Those hospices have shared with me their challenges with recruitment and their deep concern that these tax rises will make paying their staff in line with what their colleagues receive in the NHS even harder than it already is.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend talks passionately about hospices. Does she agree that taxing hospices but providing tax relief to hospitals through the relief to the NHS actually disincentivises moving people out of hospitals, which the Secretary of State for Health says is his intention?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I completely agree with that excellent intervention. The frustration that hospices have is that in order to recruit staff, they need to pay wages comparable to what NHS staff receive, and this change is making that virtually impossible to do. Hospices requires a highly specialised workforce to provide the levels of care and dignity that they offer to patients. Without the proposed exemptions, I am unsure as to the sustainability of the hospices that serve my constituents.

The second issue I would like to mention briefly is the impact on transport for children with special educational needs. As we know, the complex needs and challenges of SEN children varies from case to case; some will need specialist transport to and from school, for appointments, or just for everyday tasks. Many of these young people are vulnerable children, to whom process and routine matter. They might have a driver with whom they have built a bond and who understands their needs; they might be a highly anxious child, or perhaps a non-verbal child who has a driver who can use British Sign Language.

For my constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury, specialist transport is of the utmost importance. Our communities are isolated and rural, and parents and children rely on this vital service. There are no transport alternatives in many areas. People cannot get a bus—not even one without a specialist driver—leaving many of my villages cut off with no public transport options at all.