Secondary International Competitiveness and Growth Objective (FSR Committee Report)

Lord Altrincham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Noakes for hosting this debate. I also thank the committee for the quite long inquiry it has done for us and for its report. The creation of the committee was an important outcome of the Financial Services and Markets Act, and this might be a moment to reflect on the importance of this committee in holding regulators to account, as well as its findings in this, its first report. It is particularly welcome that it uses its first report to look at the growth and competitiveness agenda because, if we remember, that was contentious during the passage of the Bill and, at the time, the regulators pushed back quite consistently. It is helpful for us to start with that aspect of the Act. Of course, things have changed because the Government themselves have made growth and competitiveness quite an important objective, so the Act fits with the Government’s own objective.

I greatly enjoyed reading the report, despite its enormous length. It attracted an exceptional cast of English characters—regulators, parliamentarians and civil servants—all of whom performed their role before the committee to perfection. In a way, the report reads like a play, each of these characters speaking their parts. We had the deputy governor of the Bank of England saying that the Bank would consult on MREL but that, on the whole, there should be only gradual change. The deputy governor for prudential regulation pointed out to the committee that it was unhelpful to compare the UK to other jurisdictions, that risk weightings did not affect credit into the economy and that the regulators’ overall risk position did not need to be changed but that there might be a need for a little— I had to check and it is at paragraph 338—“decluttering”. That is a lovely word from our central bank. That was the position of the regulators.

The committee heard from the former lord mayor, who said that we should look to Singapore. He reminded the committee that there were huge Asian markets. The former City Minister talked about the amount that regulation is preoccupied with net zero and diversity. The former Secretary to the Treasury talked about the FOS problem, which has not come up yet, but the City Minister at that time said that the FOS situation was going to be sorted out. It has not yet been sorted out, so we have a problem in car lending at the moment. So the regulators all said what might be expected and, from their feedback, you might expect no change.

The committee also heard from some quite senior bank executives. It heard a particularly good set of feedback from a retiring bank chairman, who had been a regulator himself. He said that the regulatory costs on banks were too high and that the cost of the ring-fence was too high. That was quite helpful feedback; he is retiring, so he says what he believes, and the ring-fence might be something that the committee will look at in the future.

The chief executive of the country’s largest building society pointed out that the leverage ratio restricts credit for him and for the amount of lending that it can do—no surprises there. The chairman of Aberdeen said that people should be investing more, perhaps with Aberdeen—perhaps there are no surprises there. The American insurance executive said, very helpfully, that the cost of regulation in the UK was higher than in any other of the hundred markets in which the company operated. That would obviously be disappointing for the regulators, but they had a friend because the executive from JP Morgan—a firm quite famous in London regulatory circles for the epic fiasco of the “London Whale” credit derivatives blow-up—said that the regulators were excellent and very professional. She had no problems with her regulators. More than that, in words surely her own, she said that the regulators could not be expected to look after the other 42,000 firms as well as they look after JP Morgan.

So we had very useful feedback and a good survey of where the regulation was a year ago. As we meet now, we might reflect on what has changed or what has happened since the publication of the report. To the credit of this committee, as well as the Government—but, for now, let us say that it is to the credit of this committee—quite a bit has changed. The MREL requirement was changed by September, in time for the letter from the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, so there was change on MREL after all. The leverage ratio threshold—this is the amount of bank deposits when the threshold kicks in—moved from £50 billion to £70 billion in November. That directly addressed the question of the leverage ratio.

Then, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, the remarkable change is that the Bank cut the UK’s tier 1 capital ratio from 14% to 13%. This was the first cut since 2008 and it was an enormous change, because the Bank had not been very keen to do it and there was no hint that this was coming in any of the submissions that the committee heard. But the Bank’s tier 1 capital ratio was in fact changed.

As we meet now, it is remarkable to reflect that this committee, which was set up as required under the Financial Services Act to supervise the regulators, or rather to hold them to account, has raised issues on which there has been change. Some other issues have not been addressed yet; we mentioned the FOS, the car lending problem and the ring-fence problem, which, despite the Skeoch review, is still there and very expensive. Whether the ring-fence makes any difference is quite unknown; it is not even clear whether bail-inable capital in MREL makes any difference, but that is a discussion for another day.

Other issues are raised in the report, but the capital changes that the report has raised and then got changed mark an important moment and an achievement of this committee. That is to the credit of the committee and the Government. I thank the committee for its work, for the credit that extends into the UK economy following these changes, for looking into the cost of regulation and for holding powerful regulators to account.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Altrincham Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain a little more about what the Government believe the intention and the outcome of this policy will be. He did not answer my question earlier on why there is a rush to get this measure through Parliament so fast. Have the Government quantified the extra employer costs of the higher 15% national insurance contributions from the employer, and the 8% or 2% extra national insurance contribution per member, and quantified it in money terms and in what it will mean for pension provision and future pensioner poverty?

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening so carefully, as ever, and considering the comments made by our Benches. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, are well written and would ensure that, before regulations are made to implement the cap, the Government must publish the relevant information on how many basic rate taxpayers are affected. The policy rests on a concept of excess savings—or at least tax advantaged excess savings—and it may catch a whole range of taxpayers who have insufficient savings.

It is very useful for us to tease out the difference between these two outcomes. That is possible only if we have much more information on the distribution impacts of the policy, which the Government should be comfortable sharing with us. As we debate this, we have heard a range of observations on who is affected. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, gave a colourful description of it affecting people with enormous bonuses. That is one perspective. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, reminds us that it goes against policy for very large numbers of people to have insufficient pension savings. In other areas of government policy, we are trying to rebalance that, so the policy is dissonant on pension savings. The Government should be open and happy to share this information with us.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, the Government already have this information. That may well be sufficient evidence for us to appreciate that the incentives are rather marginal and that the gains could be rather small. Based on the numbers that we have had in the debate, the number of basic rate taxpayers who are supporting this policy would be quite small and the contribution would be extremely small to the tax take. It might be useful for us to reflect on whether it is worth destabilising pension savings for that purpose.

The noble Baroness has done a good job of setting out the rationale for her amendment. I do not want to intrude further on your Lordships’ House by repeating her arguments. These amendments are sensible and chime well with the amendments that we have tabled from these Benches, which would require the affirmative resolution procedure for most regulations. A debate on those questions will be greatly aided by the information that the noble Baroness has set out. We will be listening carefully to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 8 and 11, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, seek to make commencement of the Act conditional on publication of estimates relating to the distributional impacts of the policy.

The Government agree on the importance of transparency. However, we do not believe that additional publications are necessary to achieve that objective. A number of documents have already been published which set out the distributional impacts of this measure. The Government’s budget document sets out that 74% of basic rate taxpayers currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected by this change. This means that 26% of basic rate taxpayers would pay more. Of those, half will face a modest annual additional NICs liability of less than £50. I have confirmed previously that 87% of pension contributions made via salary sacrifice above £2,000 are forecast to come from higher and additional rate taxpayers.

The tax information and impact note was published alongside the introduction of the Bill. This sets out that an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions. Of these, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. This means that 44% of employees using salary sacrifice for pensions would be impacted by this measure, while 56%—around 4.3 million people—are protected by the £2,000 threshold.

The tax information impact note sets out the expected equality impact of the measure. It notes that employees with salary sacrifice contributions are estimated to be of typical working age. The 52% who are aged 31 to 50 are estimated to be overrepresented compared with the prevalence in the employee population in general, of 44%. It notes that men are estimated to be overrepresented in the population making salary sacrifice pension contributions compared with the prevalence in the UK adult population.

The tax information impact note sets out the number of employers expected to be impacted by this measure—290,000; the one-off costs, including familiarisation with the change, the training of staff and the updating of software; and expected continuing costs, including performing more calculations, and recording and providing additional information to HMRC where salary sacrifice schemes continue to be used. This equates to a one-off £75 and an ongoing £99 per business per year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be exceedingly brief. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, is, quite frankly, genius. We have all had a struggle trying to get our hands on information that is scattered in so many different places, and I am fairly sure that if this was put with a secret ballot to civil servants they would all sign up because they struggle as well. It makes it very difficult when new policy comes through to try to work out what on earth the consequentials are, what numbers to look at, how to weigh these issues and how to understand distribution of impact, so I support his amendment.

This is such a complex Bill. When the instructions went down to put the Bill in place, I am sure there was absolutely no sense of the complexity that was going to be entangled in it. Amendment 38 in my name was triggered particularly by the OBR publication, again in response to an FoI, Costing of charging NICs on salary-sacrificed pension contributions, which was a supplemental analysis. The word “uncertainty” appeared in so many parts of it that we began to have a sense that no one could have huge confidence in the final numbers that were appearing, and it was very honest of the OBR to make it clear that there were vast uncertainties underpinning large parts of this work.



Very much like the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I still do not think that we have bottomed out the problem with optional remuneration arrangements. It is easy to assume that we can distinguish between a negotiation where we are choosing between cash and a pension and having a negotiation that involves cash and a pension. But can we claim that the two are not related to each other, so that we do not get trapped by OpRa? There is a lot in here, and a review is the least we should do to make sure that we have a grip on these things and that Parliament gets to see it when it is still in a position to make some decisions.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in hosting the debate. The amendments in this group all underscore another substantial shortcoming in how the Bill has been approached: its effects and impacts have not been properly assessed in advance. I suspect that the Minister does not have the information on how the Bill will affect pensions saving adequacy, which I highlight in my Amendment 37, and how it will affect employer costs, pensions adequacy and workers’ take-home pay, which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raises in her amendment.

These are serious questions. As was noted in Committee, if the Treasury had done better work in preparation for the Bill, it would already be able to give us the answers to the questions that these amendments raise. These are the questions that businesses, employers, savers and industry are asking. As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, the information must be in an easily accessible format in a single place, because it will be relevant to more than just policymakers and parliamentarians: businesses and employers will be trying to understand what all this means for them, as well as employees saving for their pensions, who will be trying to understand how they could be affected.

My amendment raises the question of pensions adequacy. People are not saving enough for their pensions and the Government are worsening incentives to do so with the Bill. The Minister should consent to a review of this matter before the Bill comes into force. The Government must make sure that they know the facts, so that we can ensure that they do not inflict unintended harms. As a point of good governance, the Minister should accept this and the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.

Amendments 35, 37 and 40, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, cover the impact of the future Act on pensions adequacy and on pension-saving behaviour and participation. As I have already set out, the Government agree on the importance of transparency, and a number of documents have already been published that set out the impacts of this measure.

I turn to the principled point raised about the impact of this policy on pensions adequacy and savings behaviour more specifically. As we discussed in Committee, salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were falls in private sector pension saving during that period. The key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years is automatic enrolment. As a result of that, over 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.

Although we all share a commitment to improving pensions adequacy, many groups at highest risk of undersaving, including the self-employed, lower earners and women, are not the most likely to benefit from salary sacrifice. Only one in five self-employed people saves into a pension but they are entirely excluded from salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but higher earners are more likely to be using salary sacrifice. Many women are undersaving for retirement, but many more men use pensions salary sacrifice. The pensions tax relief system remains hugely generous and there remain significant incentives to save into a pension. The £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief that the Government currently provide on pensions each year will be entirely unaffected by these changes.

Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, would require the Government to lay before Parliament a formal review of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s supplementary forecast information release of 5 February 2026, and specifically its analysis of behavioural responses by organisations to the provisions in the Bill. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and its supplementary forecast publication set out how behavioural responses have been considered in certifying the costings. A summary of these behavioural assumptions was also published in the policy costing note accompanying the Budget. The supplementary forecast information was drawn from analysis and data—

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Altrincham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, we come to an exciting part of this Report stage, having had several debates on this Bill.

The Bill will have significant impacts on: some types of employers; some business sectors and sizes of business; some types of employees; and some types of the provision of public services by bodies which are not themselves in the public sector. More broadly, we have heard that businesses will face the double whammy of the minimum wage increases and the national insurance increases together in just a few weeks’ time, and they are likely to respond by taking actions to reduce their workforce and the hours that their workforce can work and reduce wages where they are not constrained by the national minimum wage. Prices are likely to go up, and profits are likely to go down. All this will have negative impacts on the economy. It is difficult to avoid opening a newspaper nowadays without seeing one or more campaign groups, industry representatives and charity representatives making their case for the harmful impacts of this Bill, but to date the Government have been completely deaf to all these entreaties. All this is bearing down on the economy, which is already flatlining.

I can understand why the Government do not want to make any changes to a centrepiece of their growth-destroying Budget last October. We know there is almost no room left in their fiscal rules for any changes. There are lots of downside risks to the economy, and there are precious few upsides. These are all the results of choices that the Government have made in the last seven months, so I understand why the Minister’s response to every issue presented to him in Committee, and indeed again today, was that the Government reject the cases being made.

My Amendment 39 provides for a very simple power for the Treasury to issue regulations that exempt categories of employer from the national insurance changes that this Bill introduces. There is not even a parliamentary process attached to the regulations. My amendment would therefore allow the Treasury to act quickly, once it faces up to the fact that it really has created some problems. There are no downsides to the Government accepting this amendment, as they need never use it, but it would be a useful backstop if things turn out as badly as many of us believe they will.

It is not often that the Opposition Benches offer an unrestricted power to a Government to do things, but I and others are so alarmed by the potential impacts of this Bill that I think it is the right thing for the Government to take this kind of power in the interests of the country.

We have passed some amendments today that have taken some of the roughest edges off this Bill, and I hope they will survive their passage through the Commons, but this has not made the Bill completely harm free. My sincere hope is that the Government will support this amendment, if not in its current form then in a reworded form to their own taste at Third Reading. I beg to move.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 39 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I thank all noble Lords for their courage and grace in staying all the way through to group 7.

Amendment 39 would give the Treasury the power to exempt sectors that would suffer significantly under the Government’s national insurance rise. The amendment introduces a degree of flexibility that Ministers can use to protect the most vulnerable of British businesses; by allowing the Treasury to introducing specific exemptions when required, we can exempt them from the additional financial burden of the national insurance increase.

I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward Amendment 39. It is clear that we share many of the same concerns. The amendment in her name is closely aligned with those in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that seek to exempt specific sectors, such as the social care or charity sectors. So many sectors need exemption from this policy, and we hope the Government will give the arguments thoughtful consideration.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to include powers as part of this Bill to exempt certain groups in future. As I have already set out, the revenues raised from the measures in this Bill play a critical role in repairing the public finances and rebuilding our public services. Clearly, any future changes that exempt certain groups from paying national insurance would have cost implications, necessitating either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I would therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

My amendment is classified as a probing amendment, but it is no less serious for it. Labour has, quite simply, lost control of the handfuls of money that councils rely on to deliver their services, and this national insurance rise will push them to the edge. Labour cannot blame the Tories. This is a crisis devised in Downing Street, delivered by Marsham Street, but felt in every high street. I beg to move.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend and thank him for his brief-ish words on local taxpayers and his update on the Great Reform Bill as well. I thank him for his amendment to ensure that the Government initiate a review into the impact of this tax on local authority finances.

As countless noble Lords have remarked, both in Committee and during this debate, local authorities already find themselves in a perilous financial position. As my noble friend Lord Jamieson said in Grand Committee, local government currently spends more than 70% of its funding on adult and children’s social care. The Local Government Association has estimated that this measure will cost local authorities a total of £1.7 billion. Some £1.2 billion of that is indirect costs. While the Government may have offset the direct costs of local authorities, they have not done so for the indirect costs they will face. They will have either to cut public services or to put up council tax.

Given this, a review of the impact on local authorities is surely the minimum we can expect from the Government. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 43 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require the Government to publish an impact assessment of the Bill on local authorities within six months of its introduction. The noble Lord set out eloquently the damage the previous Government did over 14 years to public services and to the funding available to local government. He asked me the same questions as he did in Committee, and I give him the same answer as I did then: it is not for me to comment on the calculations made by other organisations.

On impact, as I have set out previously this evening and extensively in Committee, the Government have already published an assessment of this policy and a tax information and impact note. The OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other tax changes, and the Government do not intend to publish further assessments.

The Government will of course continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Altrincham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Altrincham]

30: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out “2025-26” and insert “beginning after the tax year in which an impact assessment is published assessing the impact of the provisions in this section on the retail sector.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent commencement of this section until a full impact assessment is published for retail.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 30 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest and to support Amendment 51 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

Amendment 30 would delay the commencement of Clause 2 until an impact assessment had been published fully to assess the impact this tax will have on the retail sector, and Amendment 51 increases the employment allowance to £20,000 for that sector.

Retail is important because so many people work in it, not people on average or in aggregate in a Treasury forecast, but hundreds of thousands of individuals, some young, some in their first job, some working part time—as well as their families, their neighbourhoods and their customers—where they bring joy to themselves and to others every day. We know that this Bill will lead to job losses.

When the national insurance increase was first announced, there was an expectation, perhaps a hope, that the cost would be met by price rises or other changes rather than by job losses, but as the weeks have gone by, we know that the increase is being funded by job losses. That is why this impact assessment question is important because part of the impact is happening already. From the initial announcement to today, we already know that the policy is being funded by job losses, so the Bill is creating policy-driven unemployment. All of us in this Room share a little in the responsibility for this, but we should at least be very careful in our actions when we know that the cost will be unemployment.

As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and others have said, we might hope that jobs will be created elsewhere. We must surely, on all sides of this debate, hope for job creation, but that does not change the short-term impact of job losses. Equally, we might hope for productivity improvements—say, the automation of retail—which is important anyway, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned, but not, alas, if we can help it, at the cost of job losses.

To go back to what my noble friend Lord Leigh was talking about, to where the estimates at best are for those of us who are not in the Treasury, very roughly, it looks as if in retail the national insurance hike could easily lead to a 5% reduction in headcount, and if retail is of the order of 2 million or 3 million people, we could quite quickly get unemployment just from retail of 200,000. If you add a couple of hundred thousand from other areas, we are on the way to half a million job losses that could come from this policy. There was an expression earlier on about what is in scope in taxation and in the tax take. What is in scope here are individuals who will lose their jobs—unemployment is in scope. There are direct impacts on job losses.

The value of our retail sector cannot be understated. In 2024, retail sales in Great Britain were worth £500 billion, and 2.87 million people were employed in the sector: nearly 10% of all jobs in the British economy. That is therefore nearly 3 million people whose jobs will be put at risk due to this tax increase.

One of the great benefits of employment in the retail sector is that there is extraordinary element of flexibility, which allows a great number of young people to work in the sector. As has already been discussed in Committee, those who are paid the least will be affected the most. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned earlier that the cost impact on part-time and often very young workers is a 13% increase. This paints a bleak picture for our young people in the sector. Young people are already a more vulnerable group of people, and I am highly concerned that this tax increase will only paint a bleaker picture for young people trying to enter the job market.

The reduction of the threshold at which employers begin to pay employer’s national insurance to £5,000 will hit part-time employees the most. Given that half of all retail employees are part time, the fact that this jobs tax will bring 1.45 million part-time retail employees into the bracket is a devastating result for a sector that often employs young people.

The retail sector has responded with outcries at this tax that will be imposed upon it, with 81 major retailers writing to the Chancellor expressing concern over the impact the tax will have on the sector that typically operates with a 3% to 5% profit margin. In a survey done by the British Retail Consortium, 56% of chief financial officers said they would reduce the number of hours and overtime they offered their employees. This is why this is a jobs tax because businesses will be forced to cut costs in order to continue, and as such, it will hit workers the most.

I am concerned not only about the impact this tax raid will have on workers but about the impact consumers will face given the survey I mentioned above, where 67% of retailers responded that they would be forced to raise prices.

We in this Room are all aware of the impact that this tax increase will have and of the inevitable factor of creating unemployment. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this issue, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend and his amendment, which is important. If the Minister will forgive me, we hear the same reply all the time. I do not think that HMRC’s figures, the Budget assessment or the OBR figures that we were given in November or December provide adequate information to sectors facing huge job losses. They need to plan ahead, and these assessments may spur the Government if it is written down in black and white that these jobs will go.

The economist Liam Halligan pointed out in his weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend that, according to S&P’s bellwether PMI index of business leaders, firms are cutting jobs at the fastest rate since the financial crisis. He writes that there was a 47,000 drop in payroll employees in December, the biggest monthly fall since lockdown. Those figures were tallied after Sainsbury’s announced 3,000 job losses. At the same time, he wrote that personal insolvencies in England and Wales were up by 14% in 2024, with a huge spike after the Budget. UK company liquidations surged. In 2024, 3,230 companies were shut down under the courts.

Last week, I mentioned the impact on the retail sector. I will not go through it, but it is estimated that as a result of the Budget entirely, which includes the NIC costs, £7 billion will go out of the retail sector. Those figures are staggering. I cannot accept the Government’s blithe assessment. I know that the Minister is sticking to the Treasury line with the statement that the impact assessments published so far are in line with what has been published in the past. We are dealing with a different sort of measure in this NIC Bill. I have been in the House of Lords only since November 2022, but it is the first time in my experience here that we have faced a measure where it is clear to all concerned that there will be job losses on a significant scale. Surely, that should spur the Government to want to provide some kind of impact breakdown for the different sectors, whether they are the charitable, voluntary or caring sectors or in the only area where we will see growth, the private sector. If the Chancellor is so convinced and she and the Government are keen and will produce growth, they should recognise that this will come from the private sector. It does not come from growing the public sector. I hope the Minister will support or think again, as my noble friend proposes, on retail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and very happy to be his noble friend once again. As he knows, the Government keep all taxation under review, and I will take his submissions as representations on that matter.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

Perhaps we should not offer the Minister any more taxation ideas because we are trying to rein him in at the moment and, obviously, VAT is very much in scope and is coming next, so perhaps we should just hold back. But I thank him for his response and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Altrincham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Altrincham]

9: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a person employing an individual who is aged under 21.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is—(a) 13.8% in respect of any employees under the age of 21 at the start of the tax year;(b) 15% in respect of all other employees.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that employers would continue to pay the current rate of National Insurance for staff under the age of 21.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 9, 10 and 11 concern young people, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for adding her name to the former.

In previous groups of amendments, we discussed economic forecasting and the estimates made by the Government and the OBR, which the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referenced, and some of the predictions that surround this policy. The predictions estimate that, in aggregate, 50,000 jobs may be lost. These three amendments concern hundreds of thousands of young people—actual real people; they are not in aggregate in any way. They are a particularly vulnerable part of the current employment market, because hundreds of thousands of young people are not in work, and the numbers are getting worse.

Last summer, 870,000 young people aged 18 to 24 were not in employment, education or training. To give a sense of proportion to the number of 870,000, it is more than one whole cohort. Most of us in this Room were born in much larger cohorts, but the cohort sizes for people in their 20s are around 700,000. The number of NEETs in that group—people who are currently not in employment—is more than one whole cohort’s worth, and that is the age group that should otherwise be in secondary or higher education. Unemployment, which is obviously measured differently, is already running at 12% for people in their 20s. So we are talking about an exceptionally vulnerable group of people in the population, who are currently struggling to enter the market for jobs and who need either part-time work or a first job; they are not doing too well. This policy is coming in at a time when there is a very large number of very vulnerable young people.

Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that individuals under the age of 21 will continue to pay the current national insurance rate of 13.8%. This amendment inserts a provision into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 defining a “specified employer” as one who employs individuals aged under 21 at the start of the tax year. This is a useful and proactive measure for two key reasons. First, it supports employers in taking on young workers without an additional financial burden. Secondly, it helps young people gain the experience they need to start their careers, thus addressing the long-term challenges they face in the job market. Before I move to Amendment 10, bear in mind that this amendment concerns people who are 21 and under. I ask noble Lords to pause for a second to reflect on that part of the population. We are asking for a little caution in approaching people who are 21 and under, who are often looking for their first job.

Amendment 10 extends the benefit to those who are under the age of 25, further strengthening this approach. Under this amendment, employers would pay a reduced rate of 13.8% for employees under 25, while the standard 15% rate would apply to employees above this age. The reduced national insurance rate lowers the overall cost of employing younger workers, making it more affordable for businesses to offer opportunities to this age group. This is especially important for small and medium-sized enterprises, which may have limited resources and may not have been able to participate in various apprenticeship schemes. By extending this financial benefit, we would help to create more opportunities for young people, while also supporting businesses that are committed to developing the next generation of workers. Again, I ask noble Lords to pause to reflect that we are talking about people who are 25 and under, and to consider the essential intergenerational unfairness of landing this tax rise on people in this age group.

The third amendment, Amendment 11, extends the beneficial approach even further by including young adults under the age of 28. Under this amendment, employers would pay a reduced national insurance rate of 13.8% for employees under the age of 28, while the standard rate of 15% would apply to all those above that age. In supporting Amendment 11, we are not just addressing youth unemployment but making a statement about the importance of providing young people with the opportunity to gain the experience that they need to build a successful career and contribute meaningfully to the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seek to exempt the salaries of young people from the increase in employer national insurance.

An employer national insurance relief is already available for the earnings of those aged under 21 and for apprentices aged under 25, meaning that employers are not required to pay national insurance contributions up to £50,270 for these groups. Despite the challenging fiscal inheritance that this Government faced, we are maintaining these important reliefs for under-21s and apprentices under 25; they are not changing as a result of this Bill. Creating other thresholds and rates based on the age of staff would add additional complexity to the tax system. These amendments would introduce new pressures that would have to be met by more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.

The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, mentioned NEETs. I completely agree with him, but the situation that this Government inherited is completely unacceptable. That is why, at the Budget, the Government announced £240 million to fund 16 pilot projects across England and Wales in order to improve the support available to the economically inactive, the unemployed and people who want to develop their careers. This will include eight youth guarantee pilots to test new ways of supporting young people into employment or training.

It is also why, in the spring, the Government will bring forward a welfare reform Green Paper. I have read with interest the proposals mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, from the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House; I hope that many of them will feature in that Green Paper. For now, given the points that I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, because these Benches spoke extensively on charities in an earlier grouping, where the amendment would have overturned the change that the Government are introducing. I particularly want to pick up the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because, like others, I am very conscious that, of the charities that I have talked to, a fundamental part of their problem is that they cannot turn around and respond quickly enough to a measure that is being introduced so quickly. I am not up on all the rules of the Charity Commission, but I suspect that it would frown greatly on a charity spending when there is no clear funding mechanism coming in to replenish its resources. I think that there is a requirement to have several months’ contingency on the books, so there is a real problem here for many charities in having to turn around very quickly.

One of the amendments deals with increases in the employment allowance. That runs into a problem that the Government could help us with. It is my understanding that an entity that sells 50% of its services to the public sector does not qualify for employment allowance, so there will be many charities that are excluded from any benefit that is offered under that amendment. I wonder if the Minister could help us to get a better grip on that, because I think we have all struggled with understanding the application of those rules.

My last point did not occur to me until I started reading the input from various charities. A number of charities that have been able to survive and are fairly confident about their funding will now find themselves in a position where they need to battle and compete for grants. Some of the very smallest charities are concerned that they may get excluded from the grant offering because charities with a bigger reach are now turning to those particular pots. I am not sure whether the Government considered that as they put together this picture.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

This is an interesting set of amendments, given that, in essence, through this policy the Government are looking to take £1 billion out of the charity sector to fund public services, when the charity sector obviously provides public services—so it is a uniquely baffling government initiative. We on these Benches absolutely support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on Amendment 11A and by my noble friend Lady Sater on Amendment 32.

I speak to Amendment 52, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment would increase the employment allowance for charities from £10,500 to £20,000 to assist with the burden being placed upon charities. It is a probing amendment, and I would like to understand the cost that this would have for the Treasury and the plans the Government have to support the sector with the increased costs and the rise.

The remarkable comments made by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and its estimate that this will cost the sector £1.4 billion every year, has been referenced in this debate by my noble friend Lord Leigh and others. It would leave charities in a position where they are unable to absorb the costs and will, as a result, be forced to reduce the number of services they provide. In essence, as we talked about on day 1 in Committee, these services are public services. Charities in this country have become quasi-public service providers in the last 20 years, and it is most unlikely that, in pulling back services, those services would not have to be provided by the Government elsewhere. It is therefore most unlikely that the Government will not wear the costs of this change. It is naive to assume that charities provide some other service that is not a public service or a substitute for a public service.

The Government will be well aware of the severe issues that charities are facing, following the open letter from the NCVO to express concern that three out of four charities will have to withdraw from public service delivery or are considering doing so. This is an extraordinary way to treat a sector that would provide a public service. In fact, the Government have accepted the principle that the delivery of public services should not face this tax, following the exemption of both the Civil Service and the NHS. What justification does the Minister therefore have for the exemption of some providers of public services but not charities? Charities provide close to £17 billion in public services every single year, and the services they provide are invaluable to communities across the country, so a failure to protect them would be devastating.

I support my noble friend Lady Sater’s Amendment 32 and recognise the importance of the Government fully assessing the impact that this tax increase will have on the sector. The Government owe it to charities to fully consider the impact that this will have across the sector and, as such, I hope the Government will consider both Amendments 32 and 52 very carefully as we progress.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek to maintain the rates of employer national insurance for charities at 13.8% and increase the employment allowance specifically for charities from £10,500 to £20,000. The Government of course greatly value the vital work that charities do in this country, and I have listened carefully to all the points that have been raised in this debate.

It is important to recognise that all charities benefit from the employment allowance, which the Bill more than doubles from £5,000 to £10,500. This will benefit charities of all sizes, particularly the smallest charities. The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax—