Health and Social Care Levy Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

In the collective sense, this is a state insurance system, because it is making long-term provision for catastrophic outcomes in people’s health and social care, but the point that my right hon. Friend has made is an acute one. He will be aware that both the King’s Fund and the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee have looked at private insurance models and concluded that they have severe limitations that would not make them appropriate. Indeed, no country in the world has a purely private insurance model. It has certainly been contemplated by Professor Dilnot, and it is compatible with the thrust of this legislation, that there should then arise a private insurance market, now that some of these catastrophic risks have been removed from the calculus that individuals have to make about their own social care. I hope that that addresses my right hon. Friend’s point.

As I was saying, individuals over state pension age who would be liable for those contributions were they not exempt will be liable for this levy. That means that pensioners in work will now contribute 1.25% of their “NIC-able” earnings, or profit, to health and social care in the same way as working-age employees and self-employed individuals.

Clause 3 discusses in more detail how NICs legislation applies to the levy. However, clause 1 also ensures that when an employer benefits from a zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs, such as employers of people under 21, of apprentices who are under 25, of veterans or of employees in freeports, those earnings that are subject to the zero rate will not be liable for the levy. That will ensure that businesses continue to invest in young people developing strong skill sets, and in those who have served this country.

[John Redwood]

As I understand it, it is the Government’s wish that the social care levy should appear as a separately identified line item, with that phrasing, on a payslip. Could it also be clear on a payslip that it would represent only a small fraction of social care costs and a tiny fraction of health costs? Otherwise, it could be very misleading.

[Jesse Norman]

That is a helpful suggestion. I do not think there will be any ambiguity in the language on the slip, but of course it might not be clear that it is not the totality of the funding that goes through Government. If I may, I will take what my right hon. Friend has said as a suggestion and refer it to colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

Perhaps the Minister was building in some optimism bias, as the Treasury normally does to other people’s forecasts, and going for £50 million to £60 million to make sure. I do not know whether that is the cost of building the systems to enable the returns to be made, or to enable the systems to collect or chase the money, or whether there is going to be some ongoing annual cost; I assume that there will be some ongoing annual cost in trying to chase compliance too. However, we do not have an estimate for how much we are going to be imposing on business to pay this tax.

I imagine that this will be a separate tax that is not collected in the same way—the same box—as national insurance. I assume that there will have to be different parts of the payroll returning different calculations, which will require every software provider to change all their software coding to cope with it and to add in the new amount that is being paid by people over retirement age who do not normally pay national insurance. All that will cost time and money and need testing and compliance, and then we will have to check whether employers are following it and chase them for the money.

I suspect that there will be quite a large up-front cost for all that work to be done, and then a reasonable annual cost to ensure compliance, so there is a first-order question whether we are raising more by quite rightly taxing people over retirement age on their earned income—this 1.25%—than we are having spent on obtaining that. From the Minister’s remarks, I am not convinced that the answer will be positive, so in actual fact, we are creating a whole new tax to raise less money than it costs to collect it, for no real advantage other than a presentational one.

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is such an expert on this. Has he probed or got anywhere with finding out how much consequential tax loss there might be from the national insurance rise, or the care tax rise, itself? Presumably, there are some losses that will have to be offset, so gross will not necessarily be net.

[Nigel Mills]

I assume that my right hon. Friend is right that, if we reduce the number of people in work or reduce their pay rises, that will work its way through the system. The Minister may be better placed than I am to work out an answer to that question.

The nub of my argument, and the reason for amendment 8 and new clause 10, is that we have 18 months before the new levy comes into force—we accept that we cannot bring it into force in six months’ time, presumably because it is so hard to get the systems in place, and that we have to raise national insurance for the first year and move to the levy after that—so perhaps if we had all the information in front of us in the next six months or year, we could make a choice whether to go ahead with the new levy for the small amount of extra income, or whether to stick with the national insurance rise and find other ways to explain to people what they are paying their taxes for.

I think the Minister accepted that HMRC will publish its estimate, and I am sure we could find a way of getting an accurate estimate of the cost to business of complying with the levy. We could then take an informed decision before we finally introduced the levy. I think that would be a positive step in tax policy. However, if we really believe that we want a separate levy to show what people are paying directly for health and social care, I think that we should move the existing 2% of national insurance that goes directly to the health service into the levy, so there is one hypothecated payroll tax that goes to the NHS on people’s payslips, rather than it being hidden in a part of national insurance. I cannot see any reason why, if we go down the line of introducing a new health and social care tax, we would not want to have all the hypothecated payroll taxes going into the NHS or social care to get any of the advantages of that.

I will not be pressing my two new clauses to a Division, but I urge the Minister to give some serious consideration—I suspect he did not know about this new levy until around about last weekend, when it was probably dreamt up in No. 10 as a way of selling a tax rise—to using the 18 months he has before the levy comes in to try to work out whether the costs of collecting it are worth the small change. If he really does think there is a compelling argument for charging people over retirement age national insurance if they stay in work and are earning, let us charge them the full rate, rather than 1.25%. I cannot see how we can justify that they do not pay the existing 2% that goes to the NHS but they do pay the 1.25%. There seems to be no logic in that at all to me, so perhaps we should think properly and coherently about the tax system. Let us have the full rate in that situation.

Let us have a decision when we get around to the Budget in 2022. Is going ahead with this levy going to raise more money than it costs? If it is not, let us just leave it on national insurance where it will be sat at that point. That would be a more coherent way of running our taxes.

[Nadia Whittome]

With your permission, Dame Eleanor, I will speak to new clauses 3 and 5, tabled my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (James Murray) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). New clause 3 requires the Chancellor to assess the impact of the Act on tax revenue from different sources of income and new clause 5 calls on the Government to publish an equality impact assessment of the Act.

Dame Eleanor, given that even in Committee this has been a wide-ranging and broad debate, I hope you will allow me to set out the context of those new clauses. It is people in poorly paid jobs who will bear the brunt of the national insurance increase, at a time when in-work poverty is already at a record high. How can it be right to ask those who are already saddled with extortionate housing costs, poverty wages and mountains of debt to pick up the tab for this Government’s failures on social care? To put it simply, the Government are choosing to protect the interests of the wealthy who fund them at the expense of low-income workers and renters. While landlords and the super-rich who are hoarding wealth and housing pay nothing under this new tax, my constituents will be having their pockets raided.

Since 2010, under this Government’s watch, £7.7 billion has been cut from social care budgets. If I could sum up this policy—if we can call it a policy—in one word, it would be “unfair”: unfair on the working people who are funding the tax rise; unfair on the care workers who will not see their pay and conditions improve; and unfair on those relying on social care, whose needs will continue to be unmet. Figures released this week show that nearly 70,000 people in England could die waiting for social care before these changes even come into force.

If the Government were interested in fairness, they would tackle the soaring housing costs, low-paid jobs and inadequate benefits that my constituents are facing. Instead, their policy agenda is fuelling inequality and impoverishment. As we heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), 2.5 million working households will be hit by the cut to universal credit and the increase in national insurance. Working families will be losing, on average, over £1,000 next year. Meanwhile, the furlough scheme is ending and evictions are resuming.

There is, however, a group of people who have benefited from the pandemic—who have done very well, in fact: British billionaires. They have increased their wealth by over £100 billion. That is why now is the time to get serious about taxing wealth. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), said earlier in the debate that this tax hike would raise more than a wealth tax, but I am afraid that that is not true on any measure. City A.M.—this is City A.M., not “Das Kapital”—calculated that one wealth tax option would be to tax wealth progressively between £1 million and £10 million, with all wealth beyond £10 million taxed at 3%. That would bring in a total of £55 billion over five years. Alternatively, the economist Richard Murphy calculated that, if wealth was taxed at the same rate as income, that could raise up to £174 billion a year.

Will the Minister explain why none of those options was considered and what the Treasury makes of those calculations? And perhaps the Chancellor could explain to us, as a multimillionaire, why he cannot dig deep into his own pockets and why it has to be my constituents—in fact, all our constituents—instead. I think that this House and working people across the country deserve to know why a wealth tax was dismissed in favour of a tax on the poorest and the lowest paid, and what is more, to fund a plan that will not even work.

We have heard during this Committee that the Government’s excuse for not ring-fencing the money raised for social care is that health and social care are interlinked. I agree, to an extent, and that is why, to fix our social care system, we need a national care service, like our national health service, which is free at the point of use. We need to redesign the system so that the needs of care users, for want of a better word, and care workers are at its heart. The money to do that is there but it is in the pockets of the richest and it is the political will from this Government that is sorely lacking. Anything less than a national care service, funded by a tax on wealth, not on workers, would be a great disservice to the people we are elected to this place to represent.

[John Redwood]

I have worries about hypothecation. I thought the Treasury used to be against it and it is a difficult doctrine to make work well, because it is not always the case that a particular tax just happens to raise the right amount of revenue for a particular purpose, or if it does in one particular year, that may not be true in a future year because the revenue may grow too slowly for the purpose, or the purpose may become less popular and the revenue may exceed what is needed. I have always favoured the Treasury orthodoxy—I am not always someone to support Treasury orthodoxy—that it is better that we have a very big general pot into which we collect the taxes, and then we have general distribution based on tightly argued issues between Government Ministers and Departments on what their spending priorities are and the minimum amounts that they need to spend to get good results in their leading areas.

However, now that Ministers are treading the boards of hypothecation for the first time in this interesting way, I advise them that it is a very good rule, if they wish to sell the idea of hypothecation, that the tax revenue that they collect should pay for the thing that they are attaching to the hypothecated revenue. My big worry about this hypothecation is that the sum of money for social care—when we eventually get to that point after three years—collected by the so-called social care tax will be only about one fifth of the actual costs of social care to the public sector. Of course, there are additional costs to private individuals as well and I would not want my constituents to be misled. I have already had emails from constituents saying, “As the Government seem to be pressing ahead with this social care levy, I assume that I will no longer be asked to make any contribution through my council tax to social care”. Being an honest man, I have written back and said, “No, you can’t assume that at all. Social care is going to need a lot of money and I don’t think the idea is that the council tax levy part of it, or the need for that, will suddenly disappear.” So I think one does need to look again at hypothecation. If, for example, we wish to have hypothecated taxes to pay for the current costs of health, as identified by the Treasury for the current financial year, we would need to say that all income tax, all capital gains tax, all inheritance tax and all stamp duty—in other words, all income and wealth taxation—were already going to pay the large sums required for health in this year’s public budgets. Maybe we could start by renaming income tax and all the wealth taxes as a health tax, which would give people some idea of the scale of expenditure that we are talking about. There might then be a more interesting and useful debate to be had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. Does he share my concern that there may be an element of gaming by the social care sector, in so far as hotel costs are clearly exempted? Our constituents who may be listening might not be fully aware of that. There is a real possibility and risk that the sector will seek to enhance and embellish those costs so that they become a bigger and bigger proportion of the total take. Does that not need to be made explicit? Does my right hon. Friend think that in the White Paper process that we are about to embark on, there would be merit in limiting that cost in some way to ensure that the potential market exploitation of the Bill’s proposals is avoided?

[John Redwood]

I was with my right hon. Friend until his last recommendation. He had pre-empted what I was going to say next: that we need greater clarity about the three different kinds of costs that an elderly person can face.

All of us in this House agree that we believe in a health service that is free at the point of need, so that any elderly person, like anyone else, has complete entitlement to completely free healthcare if they need GP or hospital treatment. That is not in dispute. However, as my right hon. Friend has just reminded the Committee, it looks as though these proposals also say that if an elderly person is living in a care home, the board and lodging, or the hotel costs or whatever we like to call it, are not part of that kind of treatment, so if the person has money, they will have to pay for those.

I find it difficult to say that we need to pre-empt the possibility of care homes wishing to charge a bit more for that hotel accommodation, because there could be good reasons for their needing to do so, and the law is a very clumsy instrument when it comes to intervening in thousands of decisions that individuals and businesses have to make about what is a fair price. I do not think that there should be absolute price control, because it might be a period when wage costs or food costs had gone up, which the care home needed to pass on—or the care home might be improving the quality of what it was offering, in which case it would be mutually beneficial, or at any rate perfectly reasonable, for it to pass on that cost.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. May I just clarify my intent? It would be reasonable to have an indicative cost. After all, in the case of most of our constituents who are living in a residential set-up—we are talking, basically, about a bedsit—what is usually involved, in my experience, is fairly basic food and some heating. The cost of that is not enormous, and it is the sort of thing that we would be expected to fund in any event were we living in our own homes; probably rather more so. Would it not be reasonable to have an indicative amount that it is felt reasonable for homes to be charging people—particularly, I have to say, if they are being funded through local government?

[John Redwood]

I do not think that that is possible at all. Property costs vary to an incredible degree across the country. Levels of staff provision are different in different homes, the quality and level of service are different, and the needs of individual residents are different. Some are in relatively good health, and do not need to find the back-up or assistance that others require. What I want to see—and I think that we need to debate this more than we have so far—is better quality for everyone who needs end-of-life care or time in a nursing home. My right hon. Friend has suggested that some are quite basic, and I think we need to worry about that and work at it.

For me, the big care problem is whether it is adequate. I am not quite as worried about the family finances as I am about the experience of the elderly person and whether it is good enough, and, where the state is the sole funder or a substantial funder of the care, whether we are doing a good enough job in allowing a reasonable quality of care in terms of staffing numbers, training of staff and staff wages. When elderly relatives in my family have been in care, we have always wanted to make sure that the staff were well remunerated, rewarded and motivated, and had proper training, support and back-up from the care home, because I wanted them to be well looked after.

There is a much happier environment if the people working in the home are proud of it and have, for instance, a decent career structure. I therefore think that we need to be very careful about a cost-down or standard-cost approach. We need to understand the variety of life, but we also need to make sure that those who rely entirely on state support, or who may be becoming more reliant on it under the Government’s likely policy, will none the less look forward to a reasonable standard of care, and that the people who work with them and for them are treated well by employers who respect them and offer them a career structure, proper training, decent support and all those other good things.

In conclusion, I hope the Government will look again at some of these points to ensure that there is no muddle over the true costs of these services and the contribution that the tax will make, if they insist on it, because it will be quite a small contribution as a proportion of the whole. Will they also look at a big care issue that does not get enough attention in the Bill, which is the quality of the care? That leads immediately into the quality of the experience for the employees, their career structure and their ability to create good atmospheres in care homes that are of a high standard. Can we also have a bit more thought and more information on what this will mean for individuals going into care homes and their supporting families? I am afraid that I still do not have a clear explanation to offer my constituents as to what their experience would be under these proposals.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I am speaking in support of new clause 3, which would require the Chancellor to look at different taxes to raise income. There are many other ways to raise this money and, in particular, I believe that we need to look at ways to tax wealth rather than taxing working people. Wealth in this country is concentrated among the top 1%, so instead of imposing a tax bombshell of £12 billion a year on working people, the Government could focus on the wealthy. They choose not to; instead, we have a tax system rigged in favour of those who already have wealth. They pay lower taxes than the millions who have to go out to work to make a living. The truth is that the Government’s proposal makes that situation even worse, and that is not right. The Government could reform capital gains tax, so that instead of lower taxes for wealthy people, that money could be used to fund social care, but they choose not to do so. They could raise many more billions of pounds by a direct wealth tax on the richest 1% with assets of more than £5 million, but they choose not to do so.

I am backing new clause 3, because there is always an alternative. That the Government refuse to back such alternatives speaks volumes. Aneurin Bevan once said that socialism was the language of priorities, but conservatism is the language of priorities too: the priority of safeguarding the wealth of the super-rich and sticking the boot into working people. This is the same old Tory party, attacking working people and defending the wealthy. We have heard a lot in this debate about so-called tough choices, but when politicians speak the language of tough choices, it usually means that they are taking the path they think is easiest. The truth is that the Government are taking the easy choice: not levelling up but kicking down and taking a hands-off approach to the wealth of the super-rich. There are alternatives, and that is why I am backing new clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I thought that might be the hon. Gentleman’s response. Today we are talking about social care as well as healthcare, and the principle of universalism does not apply to social care because it is and will continue to be the subject of means-testing.

The Government talk the talk of integrating health and social care, and I had an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. He justifies having a health and social care levy on the basis that they are interdependent. If they are interdependent and we are moving towards an integrated scheme, why do we not apply the same principles to both NHS healthcare and social care? We could have means-testing for healthcare, in the same way as we have for social care, or we could not have any means-testing for social care, in the same way as we do not have any means-testing for healthcare. If we are going to merge the two schemes, we need to resolve those anomalies. I am afraid that everything that has come out of this short debate shows that the Bill is a muddled fudge that perpetuates the distinction between health and social care but does not meet the challenge I put to the Minister: why not have a distinct social care levy?

Is it reasonable that we should have co-payment in the NHS? If so, it would generate an enormous amount of additional income. We essentially have co-payment on prescription charges, ophthalmology services, dentistry and, increasingly, audiology services. The idea that we should have co-payment more widely, so that people who can afford it contribute, say, half the cost of an orthopaedic operation, seems to be anathema to the Government. I do not understand why, if they want to get more money into the system.

Our system differs from most overseas systems. We are not spending more on healthcare in this country, but we are spending more on publicly funded healthcare and not enough on privately funded healthcare. I would like to see a Government strategy to encourage more investment by ordinary individuals in the healthcare system. I have a private Member’s Bill on co-payment coming up in the new year, but perhaps before that we might be able to get some movement from the Government on these principles. We have co-payment in the social care sector. If it is all right in the social care sector, why is it not all right in the healthcare sector? We are excluding hotel costs—the board and lodging costs—from the £86,000 social care threshold, but we do not charge any hotel costs to rich people who are in hospital. Why not? There does not seem to be any logic in that.

I am glad it looks like the Minister will have a long time to answer these points and the other important points raised by my hon. and right hon. Friends. If we are going to have a complete review and fundamental change of outlook on health and social care, we need to meet those challenges. What is the answer as to why we do not charge hotel costs for millionaires in hospital? That would introduce more income into the service and bring it into line with what happens with social care.

Those questions remain to be answered, but there are a whole lot more besides. I was looking at the Official Report of an exchange in the other place yesterday evening. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Lord Bethell, said that

“we recognise that family carers play a vital role. When we announced an additional £4.5 billion over three years for social care, it included a commitment to take steps to ensure unpaid carers have the support, advice and respite they need.”

We know that there are about 1.6 million unpaid carers, and that was leading them to believe that there was some sort of dividend around the corner for them. However, Lord Lilley picked up on that point and asked the Minister to

“confirm that…there would be only £1.5 billion a year going to social care from the large increase in national insurance”.

Obviously, that is correct. He then asked the Minister to

“confirm that nearly half of that will be absorbed by the need to pay for the extension of free social care to those with valuable homes…That means that nothing will be left to help domestic carers.”

That was a perfectly straightforward question, and as it was not answered in the other place last night, I hope that the Financial Secretary can answer it tonight. The answer that that Health Minister gave—perhaps the Treasury has a better view on this—was that

“the maths that my noble friend has done is a little bit premature.”

I did not think that maths could ever be premature. He continued:

“The White Paper will come out later this year; it will spell out the precise financial arrangements, and I am looking forward to that.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 September 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1130.]

The Minister was implying that he did not really have a clue as to what was going to be in it when it came out. That is an example of the muddled thinking, the failure of the Government to answer precise questions and the very dangerous policy of raising expectations among our constituents that somehow they are all going to be able to relax and spend all their hard-earned savings and use their houses for themselves without having to contribute much towards the long-term costs of social care.

May I throw out a suggestion arising from that exchange in the other place last night? If we have 1.6 million people providing free care for their loved ones, why are we choosing to impose upon them an extra levy, an extra tax? Surely it would be reasonable—clause 4 enables this to be done by subsidiary legislation—to exclude those who are looking after their loved ones, doing the right thing and saving the state a lot of money. We could say, “In return for doing that, you will be exempt from the 1.5% levy.”

[John Redwood]

indicated assent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend thinks that is a good idea. I hope we will get some nodding soon from those on the Front Bench, but I have looked there in vain so far.

Anybody who speaks in a debate such as this is open to the challenge as to how they would pay for this. That challenge was put across the Dispatch Box today by Conservative Members to Opposition Members, and answer came there none. I have an anecdote to share with the House. Probably around a fortnight ago I was talking to a former very senior aide at No. 10. He said that one great thing that has come out of the covid-19 emergency is the sure knowledge that we can manage with 25% fewer civil servants in government without any detriment to the quality of government. That came from a senior adviser at No. 10. How many fewer civil servants does my right hon. Friend the Minister think we can have without any detriment to the public service?

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he think that as a lot of civil servants now find they can work pretty well from home, we do not need all these expensive offices and perhaps ought to be surrendering leases?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That is another excellent idea. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the suggestion, but I fear that the Government are so focused on spending money that they have lost any incentive to try to control expenditure, which I thought was the Treasury’s job. It takes me back to Geoffrey Howe’s first Budget. The Conservatives had become a national Government on the back of very high socialist spending and a popular rebellion against socialist waste and high taxation. In his first Budget, Geoffrey Howe emphasised: “Finance must determine expenditure”. That message has now been lost by the Government, who are saying that expenditure must determine finance. Our Government—I say “our Government” advisedly—have reverted to the old socialist tax and spend philosophy in which expenditure determines finance. I hope that my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench will explain why he thinks that to change our philosophy fundamentally is consistent with Conservative values.

My final point is about the Barnett formula. The Bill recites a restatement of the fact that the Barnett formula is there and says, “Isn’t it fair?” My constituents are incensed at the unfairness of the Barnett formula, which results in their paying higher taxes so that the people of Scotland can receive higher public services, with much more spent on those services in Scotland than is spent in England, financed by our constituents in England. Why, when we should be looking at issues that relate to expenditure, are we just saying that the Barnett formula is going to apply? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say what will happen when the Barnett formula is reviewed or abolished, as surely it must be because it has outlived its usefulness? The House of Lords did a comprehensive demolition job on the Barnett formula, which was brought in years ago as a stopgap—a plastering over of some cracks—and has now almost reached the status of some religious doctrine.

My right hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to persuade me to do other than vote against this Bill’s Third Reading, because introducing it is a chronic mistake by the Government, and it is even worse that we should be imposing taxes without explaining how we are to spend them. But let me leave that on one side. I hope that my right hon. Friend, wearing his Treasury hat, will be able to explain exactly what the Government are doing to help to constrain and reduce waste in public expenditure, whether it be by getting rid of leases on surplus buildings; by sacking staff who are not productive; by introducing the long-promised cap on exit payments; by stopping the obscene salaries that are paid in much of the public service; or by addressing the problem of all these bureaucrats in the health service who seem to squeeze out productive activity, for whom we are having to pay dearly and are going to have to pay the highest taxes in our lifetimes. Those are the challenges that the Government must face up to if they are to be able to recover not just my support, but the support of so many Conservative activists up and down the country.