National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

It may be 10 minutes; I will sit down and then I will get up and make my speech again, if the noble Baroness likes. It is advisory.

There are energy costs that people are faced with, the impact of increasing regulatory burdens and the fact that people are just giving up. The lack of an impact statement, which seems to be becoming a habit for this Government, is a major criticism. They have already got into difficulty due to not doing this. They have had to revise the proposals they put forward for non-doms because they suddenly discovered that the impact of their policy would actually reduce revenue, so they had to change it. Had they done a proper impact statement, they would never have made that mistake—and there are other examples.

So these amendments are important, and I hope the Minister will take these arguments on board and think again.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise; I was not in the country to be present during Second Reading, although I did have the chance to discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, while we were supporting a much smaller economy than our own.

I support all the amendments in this group. I will speak later on the impact on the charities sector, in particular on social care homes, but I will concentrate now on the effect on business, in particular small business.

Small business is, of course, notoriously difficult to determine. There are all sorts of definitions of small business all over the legislation. The definitions that have been proposed are perfectly adequate. Companies House calls businesses small if their revenue is less than £10.2 million and they have fewer than 50 employees, and adds some balance sheet footing restrictions. Micro companies, however, are those that make less than £632,000.

One of the problems with the amendments—that can, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, be revised—is how the Government will work out which companies are eligible for this reduction. As we know from our work on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, Companies House does not require disclosure of revenue for these small companies, particularly if the balance sheet and employee numbers are lower. The numbers are there in HMRC but, as we have discovered, HMRC will not release them. This could of course be self-selecting.

I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell— I say this as a qualified tax accountant who is always happy to sharpen his pencil—that there will be any money in this for tax accountants trying to find wiggle room. These proposals are the simplest and most effective way to reduce costs for small companies. The proposal that the noble Lord suggests—I think I quote him—of “subsidies or benefits” is much more complicated and dangerous. I accept that research and development tax credits do a good job, but subsidies and benefits for small companies in place of reducing national insurance would be a far greater administrative burden, in my opinion.

These amendments directly affect small businesses. As we have heard from a number of people, they will suffer because higher employment costs lead to lower hiring capacity and potential job costs. This will lead to lower wages, which will lower morale and lead to higher wages, with pressure on employers. It leads to less investment and growth. The inevitable lower profits, which I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth indicated, means that covenants are at risk, which is a real issue for small businesses because banks are not sympathetic to this issue.

I too declare an interest: like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I started a business. I had one partner and one assistant, and I too had sleepless nights about how we were going to survive and pay the payroll. We have 220 employees now, but my experience makes me very concerned for the survival of small companies. It has to be said that, although the Government Front Bench in the other place have many skills, abilities and experiences, none of them has started a small business. None of them knows and understands the pressures the small business men and women face. The risk of starting a business means that they have typically put up money secured on their home and left gainful employment so to do.

I urge the Front Bench here to listen to those who have been through that and adopt the sensible suggestion to conduct a proper assessment of the implications of what has been proposed. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, there are clearly economic challenges, but there are other ways of sorting them. The best, in my opinion, is to think about the 9 million people who are economically inactive. Steps taken to get the economically inactive into employment will dramatically improve the economy, whereas constantly justifying everything by the infamous £22 billion black hole does not lead to a sensible discussion.

Andy Haldane said that the black hole event was

“unnecessary and probably unhelpful economically”.

The aforementioned OBR has said that

“it was unable to confirm chancellor Rachel Reeves’ claim that she inherited a £22bn ‘black hole’ in the public finances from the previous administration”.

To be fair, the Chancellor’s claim that the Treasury had not been transparent about the pressures on the public finances resonates, but the chair of the OBE himself said that he

“could not endorse the £22bn ‘black hole’ figure specifically”.

Mr Hughes told a press conference a few months after the Budget that it was simply “impossible to say”.

I refer your Lordships to an article in the Financial Times in which Mr Hughes “noted that other measures” the Chancellor

“had included in her estimate of the £22bn ‘black hole’”

included

“her own £9.4bn uplift to public sector pay”

without any productivity gains. The article went on to say that, sadly,

“the Treasury has failed to fully explain how it arrived at the £22bn number”—

I know that explanations have been given, but I do not think that they are satisfactory—

“declining to answer a Financial Times freedom of information request on the subject”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am following what my noble friend is saying carefully. He mentioned the number of people who are apparently economically inactive, as well as the great pressure that there is on low-margin hospitality businesses. What does he think is the likelihood of this measure resulting in larger numbers of people working in the black economy and the Government getting no tax receipts whatever? My noble friend will remember, from being on the Economic Affairs Select Committee’s Finance Bill Sub-Committee, the horrors that occurred with the loan charge: employers were asking people to be treated as if they were self-employed through agencies, which resulted in people getting enormous, life-changing bills. To what extent does my noble friend think that this imposition of costs will actually create all of these problems, to the disadvantage of the Treasury and many other people?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment, because it is clearly the case. Every single one of my corporate clients has told me that they have had to reforecast and rebudget with lower profit. Every single one has said that they are going to take steps to shave that back, and that those steps will include lowering their employment bill: they will either sack people, reduce hours or not recruit. Will that drive people into the so-called black economy? I cannot honestly answer that because I do not know, but the point is that none of us knows. This is why an impact assessment is so desperately needed before dangerous steps are taken to pressurise British business into—

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we will resume the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has the floor.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I think that I had reached the conclusion of my remarks, which is that I support these amendments. I particularly support impact assessments.

Before I sit down, I just make the comment that it is somewhat strange to note that we were voting on something in the Chamber of the House relating to boxes in the Royal Albert Hall, but we are deprived of the opportunity to vote on the matter of national insurance rises for every company in the UK. That seems to me to be somewhat absurd.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I stand as a winding speaker but also as someone who attached their name to Amendment 22 from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which I think gets to the heart of the problem that we have with this Bill. To me, the most pernicious measure has been the dropping of the threshold, which has meant that trapped into employers’ national insurance contributions are the lowest paid and the part-timers. There is a disadvantageous impact on small businesses in hospitality and tourism, which are the backbone of so many communities and employ so many people for whom other work is very difficult to find. That makes it a really significant amendment, and I was very glad to attach my name.

I talked on an earlier set of amendments, essentially, about small businesses but also, more broadly, about tourism, hospitality and part-timers. I will not repeat that; the Committee has listened to me once on those issues and certainly does not need to hear me twice. I just make a small comment on why I am particularly concerned about the approach to small businesses, which is that it seems to me that the Government have put in some protections for what are genuinely micro-businesses but do not use “micro” and instead keep using “small”. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, identified the benchmark, which is about seven employees. Then you can start to do better under the changes that the Government have made. However, every time I read about the growth agenda, it requires the upscaling of our small businesses. This, in many ways, has been the British disease.

I was looking at reports from the ScaleUp Institute, which obviously does excellent surveys so you can get a granular feel of what is happening with many of these businesses. Most of them state that the first problem in scaling up is talent, but the second problem is access to finance. For a company that will now have to take on board additional costs—about £1,000 or more per employee—this will exaggerate that problem of access to finance. Many of them will now have to find finance in order to be able to cover the working capital that is engaged in paying higher employers’ national insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his excellent and interesting Second Reading speech, covered some of the issues associated with that credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his follow-up points. As I have said, we are not able to provide him with those figures and that remains the position.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I asked for an impact assessment on the National Security and Investment Bill, and none was forthcoming, but this is in respect not to tax but to social security. Therefore, there are no precedents.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I disagree with the noble Lord. The previous Government’s health and social care levy is a very direct precedent.

--- Later in debate ---

We have heard over the past two days the damaging effects of the increases on many sectors. I hope that we will see some more movement from His Majesty’s Government and their position in relation to charities and the voluntary sector, and that the impact statement will be published. If not, I might have to bring this issue back on Report.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I spoke in respect of small businesses and, as the Minister will have detected, I was upset about the effect that the NI increases will have on small businesses. I would not say that I am upset about the effect that it will have on charities: I am angry and disappointed. The Labour Government have dramatically let down charities and they should know better. The total increased cost of employers’ NIC is estimated at £1.4 billion a year to the charity sector alone. Those are not my figures; they are from the highly respected aforementioned NCVO, with which I have worked in the past.

I have done a lot of work in the charity sector. I formed the committee to look at fundraising abuses, working with the NCVO, from which the fundraising regulator came about. I chair four charities in the United Kingdom. I work for a number of other charities, as indeed do other noble Lords in this Room.

For example, every year I run 10 miles for WaterAid. One of the noble Lords present in this Room supports me, for which I am grateful. Every year, I raise £50,000. I have raised £0.5 million for WaterAid in total. The entire benefit of my fundraising for WaterAid has been wiped out by the national insurance increase. The whole purpose of the fundraising for so many people is wasted, gone, because the money has gone to the Government for the purpose of raising revenue, which I understand is perfectly reasonable. But surely the Government could be more intelligent and sympathetic to charities in seeking to raise revenue. I know that the Minister is driven by empirical statistics.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

Can I just follow up the point that my noble friend raised about fundraising? When we start to lose staff and people in the charity sector, and in charities as a whole—charities are people, after all—we will not have the ability to raise the funds that were assisting the Government to provide services. So it is a double whammy: charities will not only lose money through paying increased national insurance but lose money that they would fundraise to help support them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Sater for underlining my point. It is exactly that. People will turn to me and ask, “Well, why should I give to you, Lord Leigh, and your fundraising efforts, because the Government are going to take away much more?”

According to the Charity Commission website, there are 5,435 charities with an income between £0.5 million and £1 million. On average, they make a surplus of just over £13,000 and employ about 12 people. So the increased cost caused by the raise in the NI for people on the minimum living wage, which is a large proportion of such people, will be £997. There are some heroic assumptions in this, but it is not unreasonable to say that the cost to these charities, on average, will be just over £12,000, which wipes out almost their entire surplus.

I accept that those charities will receive employment benefits, so let us look at some of the larger charities. There are 6,000 charities in the £1 million to £5 million range. Interestingly, they raise a total of £13 billion and spend a total of £12 billion, most of which is on salaries. On average, they employ some 35 people and the surplus is just over £19,000. The extra cost to them will be £35,000, which will not just wipe out their entire surplus but push them into deficit.

There are only 1,200 charities with income in the £5 million to £10 million range, and they employ an average of 104 people, so the extra cost to them of the NI burden is £103,000. Their average surplus is £47,900. Once again, their surplus will be completely wiped out and, thanks to the imposition of these extra costs, they will make a loss.

As my noble friend Lady Sater said, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor, and I note that its letter was signed not just by the NCVO but by 7,360 charities. It employs over 1 million people. Charities deliver benefits to the public sector of some £17 billion a year, so this is distressing, to say the least. My noble friend raised a number of specific charities; she mentioned a local Age UK, with which I do not have any connection. Age UK states:

“This particularly impacts organisations that employ significant numbers of low paid staff … Local Age UKs are warning that these changes will significantly impact their ability to provide essential services to vulnerable older people, particularly in underserved areas”.


In turn, this will have

“a knock-on effect on older people’s health and wellbeing, increasing demands on our already hard-pressed health and social care services”.

I made the point earlier—it was a political point—that the Labour Front Bench does not have as much business experience as it might, although it has many other attributes and qualities. It has a strong and close connection and experience with the charitable sector; there is a good relationship. So why on earth would the Government not accept these amendments to help the charitable sector and save it from these disastrous costs?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Will the noble Lord comment on a different service that charities provide? For instance, my think tank has often been contacted by government departments asking to have a run of research on, say, intellectual disability and its cost. When I ask the official why they want that, they say, “It would be a very good study, but we couldn’t do it for less than—”, and they tell me the astronomical sum of money that it would cost them to do the same study.

Time and time again, we have demands for all kinds of work, which we have done and published, because we can do it, and we can get the best people to do it. People will give their expert advice and analysis for free. The Government, of whatever complexion, will then benefit. Why have this Government and other Labour Governments not done this? It is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Of course, I do not think for moment that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on the Front Bench opposite, does not have business experience, but charities save taxpayers money and provide the Government with many different types of services.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for that. One of the four charities that I chair is a think tank, so I totally agree with her. In this country, the Charity Commissioners are particularly effective and very good at clamping down on organisations that are not proper charities. So we can be comfortable that any organisation registered with the Charity Commissioners as a charity is bona fide and generates good work, as the noble Baroness said.

I urge the Minister to have a deep think about this and consider an additional exemption for the private sector. An exemption has already been made for the public sector, so it is doable.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Sater. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I just ask: what are the Government afraid of? This is a sensible suggestion about assessing what the effect might be of an enormous change to every business and charity organisation in the country. If it is such a good thing—we are told that it is—verify it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. It must be galling for the Minister to sit here and be lectured by the Conservative Benches because he and I so often tried to obtain information and were consistently denied it. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why there was not a greater outcry. Everybody just got so used to being denied information.

I am sure that the Minister will also be able to cite many economic crises when information was not provided—I have to say, the silence on the Conservative Benches in not calling out for that information was very loud, if I can put it that way. I am sure that, if the Conservatives were back in government again, we would get the same absence of transparency and limitations on information. There are perhaps two honourable exceptions—the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe—who stood out against their party when every other voice was one that co-operated in that silence.

That silence was part of the reason why there was so much mistrust of the Conservative Government in the end; it was part of their undermining. As the Minister and his Government start to look at reform, which they are looking at more generally—particularly in dealing with the Civil Service—looking for opportunities for transparency would be a really positive move. With information, we stand on more secure ground. Will he consider that? I have asked him that before.

It is realistic to understand that we are unlikely to get impact assessments ahead of the actions that the Government contemplate doing in the next few weeks, or just in the next couple of months, but post reviews are at least a place to begin. They shed light, and they help both the Government and Parliament to understand where things have been effective and where they have not. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept these kinds of requests for immediate impact assessments, will he consider seriously the various requests made in other groupings for post-facto analysis and review?

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I want to speak briefly in support of this series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and others. It is very important to listen to what somebody such as my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is involved in the retail industry, has just said.

I know, given my experience of dealing with the Treasury as a Minister, that it takes an absolutist position on most things. The Treasury does not like to cede any point at all; it regards that as some sort of weakness. I suspect that the Minister has been told that this is what the Treasury has decided and that he is not to resile from any of the arguments or rescind any of the inherent parts of the Bill. However, this proposal would not really change anything.

We on this side of the House are not arguing against these increases. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in Davos about reinvigorating the economy and instilling confidence in it, at the same time as the Government are going to kick in the solar plexus a lot of those entering the market—people leaving university, for instance, and trying to get into the job market for the first time. They have an astonishing combination of challenges ahead of them, not least because of student loan repayments and the cost of housing.

If these changes are instigated so quickly now, where are the companies’ savings going to come from? They can come only from freezing employment and shedding jobs, from passing on the costs to the consumer and from totally stopping their R&D budgets. All these things are not, I would argue, in the long-term interests of the British economy.

By all means let these changes come, but let the market be prepared—the market being the employers, who can look at these changes and spend more time trying to accommodate them. Otherwise the Government are going to achieve what they think they are going to achieve on the one hand with an increase in income from these increases, but at the same time there must be a decrease because there will be fewer people in employment and more people needing some kind of financial support, which will have the precise inverse effect of what we are told the Government are seeking to achieve.

I hope that the Minister will realise that we are not trying to attack the principle of what the Government are trying to do. We recognise the fact that the Government need to raise revenue from somewhere, but we are asking the Government to think more holistically about the knock-on effects on those very people who they maintain they are also trying to help.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. It occurs to me—I would be interested to know whether it is true—that this must be the first series of amendments where the three signatories have all been directors of FTSE 100 companies. That must tell us something. I think it is the first time, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.

It is a great pleasure to speak after one of my role models—she does not know it, but it is true—my noble friend Lady Noakes, as well as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and, particularly, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Apsley Guise, who is widely regarded as one of the leading businessmen of his generation. I say that because he is from a younger generation than me, perhaps. He has an outstanding business career that has created thousands of jobs and tremendous value for shareholders. Thankfully, he still has time to contribute to your Lordships’ House and other communal activities, so when he speaks I think we should listen carefully. He is right to say that there is some truth that more expensive labour leads to greater productivity, mainly because productivity is measured as output per hour so, by definition, productivity improves, but it is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself. He mentioned the food sector. Certainly, in the hospitality sector I know of companies that are just closing down. This increase has led them to say that they are going to give it up, which cannot be what the Government want.

On 6 January, Next reported anaemic growth as the result of the tax measures. On the very same day, S&P Global’s Purchasing Managers’ Index came out and said that nearly 25% of British businesses reduced their workforce following the Budget specifically. The index indicated that the private sector has experienced its weakest growth in 14 months, with firms shedding jobs at the fastest pace in more than 15 years, other than during the pandemic. HMRC released its payroll data on 21 January. Employees in the UK declined by 47,000 to 30.3 million in December alone, the biggest drop since November 2020, which again was pandemic-related. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson mentioned, Sainsbury’s came out on 23 January with cuts to head office of 3,000 and an ambition to reduce senior management roles by 20%. Recently, on 27 January, the Confederation of British Industry reported that private sector firms expect a significant decline in activity over the next three months with a weighted balance of 22% negative. It said that this pessimism is widespread across sectors including services, distribution and manufacturing. The downturn was mainly due to the Budget.

With the assistance of someone who is much smarter than me on spreadsheets, I have tried to calculate the effect of all this. Although I am an economist by background, this is not a specialist area for me, so I would be extremely grateful if the Minister would ask the Treasury to comment on the numbers that I am going to give him. I think that they are right, but I would be more than happy to be challenged if they are not.

My premise is that the average UK earnings per full-time employee is £33,280. The number of full-time equivalents in the UK is bang on 30 million. If you increase the existing employers’ NI rate of 13.8% to 15% and reduce the existing NI threshold of £9,100 to £5,000, you get an increase in total NI take from £100 billion to £127.2 billion, giving you a total employers’ NI increase of £27.2 billion—or, to be precise, £27.154 billion—which is the sum that the Chancellor seeks. Fair enough. But, given all that we have heard today, what happens if employment reduces? You can put in any variable you like. I have taken what I regard to be a most reasonable suggestion of 3%. Let us say that, as a result of this, there is a 3% reduction in employment. Personally, I think it would be much more, but let us say 3%. At that point, the number of UK full-time equivalents becomes 29.1 million. The employers’ NI take goes to £123 billion, which is a reduction of £3.8 billion. But, at the same time, there is universal credit for those redundant full-time equivalents of £20,000 a head, which costs the Treasury £18 billion. If you add the loss of that universal credit to the reduction in NI take that I have just mentioned, you get a net loss of—guess what—bang on £27.05 billion. So, the 3% reduction in employment that I reckon will happen leads to absolutely no gain to the Treasury whatever.

I present those figures because I would like to be challenged on them and proven wrong, but I do not think that I am. Along with the signatories to the amendment, I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to reflect carefully, in the spirit of co-operation, as to whether it is wise to bring this measure in so harshly, so quickly.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that this is my first intervention on the Bill. I am not a FTSE 100 director, nor am I the chief executive of a great company like Next. I am the chief executive of a small charity in Scotland and the reason why I have not been able to participate on this Bill is that we are going through a consultation process to reduce our employee numbers at this very moment as a direct result of the cliff edge and shock to us of the increases in national insurance.

I rise merely to say that everything that my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Wolfson and Lord Leigh have just said is my daily life at the moment. While businesses can potentially put up their prices, charities cannot. What also concerns me is that because this cliff edge, which is what these amendments are trying to smooth out, is happening at the same time as the rise in national minimum wage, we are facing a double whammy in trying to make our books balance.

What finally concerns me is that this will lead not only to a reduction in the number of those in employment but to a reduction of skills in these organisations. These things cannot easily be built up again, should the situation change. Give us time to implement and do the things that we need to do. I urge the Minister to listen to my colleagues and do all that he can to soften this terrible blow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Government tend to cost the Government’s policies. It is not usual practice for the Government to cost Opposition policies.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, will he commit to having the Treasury look at the numbers I mooted? I will happily send him the spreadsheet if it helps to verify whether they are accurate.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

I rise in support of my noble friend, who made an excellent and passionate speech about hospices and the dire need for support they will have if the NICs changes go through. They will affect, as we have heard already, redundancies and the level of staffing. The burden that will be put on hospices will be extraordinary and the figures are unbelievable if we consider how much they will have to raise if they have to find that money in the future. As I have said previously, it is imperative that we have an impact assessment whereby we can understand these individual sectors and the absolute devastation that will happen if we do not know what will happen, going forward. So I plead with and urge the Minister to reconsider and support my noble friend on this important sector. It is important that we know a little more about what will happen if these insurance rises take place.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest in much the same way. If all goes to plan, I will speak on Thursday in respect of social care homes, particularly adult social care homes, where many of the same issues arise. I cannot imagine the response if a Conservative Government had decided to put national insurance rises on such institutions; can noble Lords begin to see the headlines that would be against us?

This House is a revising Chamber; it allows the Government the opportunity to pause, rethink and consider, and if ever there was a case to do so, this is it. Before the Government have the acute embarrassment of urging Peers to go through the Division Lobby to penalise care homes and hospices in such a way, I very much hope that they will take advantage of the gap between Committee and Report to reflect on the arguments.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest and thank her for her very moving and informed speech. It triggered a memory for me. I was approached by the Children’s Hospice South West for a fundraiser —my goodness, I think it was 15 years ago—and managed to raise a record amount by putting on an event for it. I saw for myself the astonishing job that hospices do. They provide a level of care and places that many of these people—children, in particular—could not find elsewhere, so the question for the Minister is this: if some of them are to shed staff and therefore be less able to take these very needy children and their relations, where will the Government step in? How will they take up the slack and what, ultimately, will be the cost to the Government?

I have some sympathy with the Minister. He has come here today to hold the Treasury line, of course, but we are wasting our time if, to each and every group of amendments we table, the stock reply is, “The Government need to raise the money. They don’t recognise the figures that the Opposition are presenting”, and we move on to another set of amendments. That does not suggest to me much dialogue or debate. But I congratulate the Minister on one thing: so far in our deliberations this afternoon he has not alluded once to the fictitious £22 billion black hole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to prevent commencement of the Bill until an impact assessment is published for the retail sector. Delaying commencement of the Bill would reduce the revenue generated from it and require either higher borrowing, lower public spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. The Government carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance.

As I have said previously, an impact assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.

Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to increase the employment allowance for those employed in the retail sectors. The Government are taking action as part of the Bill to protect the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all, and more than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package. This means that employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance.

The Budget also set out further steps that the Government are taking to strengthen small businesses’ ability to invest and grow, including in the retail sector. This includes freezing the small business multiplier, permanently reducing business tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, and publishing the Corporate Tax Roadmap to provide stability and certainty within the tax system for businesses across the economy.

Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors would add additional complexity to the tax system and, by adding further spending pressures, would require higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The Minister helpfully said in his opening remarks that not doing this would mean that the Government would have to increase borrowing, reduce spending or increase taxes. Yesterday—I think—I tried to be helpful by suggesting to him that there is a way of raising further revenue by amending the digital services tax to make it effective and looking at VAT on imported goods below £135. Since then, the American Government have announced that they are looking to put import taxes on goods below £135 imported from China, and the Times reported that the digital services tax was being looked at again.

In this context, will my noble friend, or rather the Minister—I beg his pardon; as he knows, I already regard him as a noble friend—reconsider what other options there might be to replace the areas of taxation which noble Peers on this side of the Committee have expressed concerns about?

[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.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham, and to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. These amendments are not merely technical adjustments; they represent a critical step in recognising and supporting the social care sector, which remains indispensable to our society.

Amendment 47 proposes an increase in the employment allowance available to employers in the social care sector, raising it from £10,500 to £20,000 per tax year. This increase is of profound importance. Our social care providers are grappling with rising operational costs, staffing challenges and the ever-present need to deliver high-quality care to some of our most vulnerable citizens. By enhancing the employment allowance, we are providing smaller employers with essential financial relief that will help to sustain their operations in the light of the brutal national insurance increases, retain skilled and valuable staff and invest in the quality improvements that our social care users so desperately need.

For too long, the funding constraints on social care providers have meant that many have had to make painful compromises, such as reducing staff numbers, cutting back on training or deferring vital infrastructure improvements. These compromises ultimately diminish the quality of care provided and place additional strain on an already overstretched system. Increasing the allowance would acknowledge that social care is not a peripheral service, but a core pillar of our public support system, deserving of the same robust backing as the NHS, which is being compensated for the additional NICs charges.

Moreover, this amendment recognises the unique cost structures within the social care sector. Unlike other industries, social care providers face significant regulatory and operational burdens. They must meet stringent care standards, invest in specialised training and often operate in environments where margins are exceptionally thin. They are the backbone of a sector that touches so many lives. The Local Government Association estimates that the NICs charges create £1.77 billion in additional costs for councils, with £637 million for directly employed staff and £1.13 billion through indirect costs, via commissioned providers, including £628 million for adult social care alone. These are big figures.

There is also an important symbolic dimension to these amendments. By focusing on the social care sector, we are sending a clear message that the care of our elderly, our disabled and our most vulnerable is a national priority. This sector has often been on the back foot, underfunded and overlooked. Today we are recognising its importance and taking concrete steps to bolster it. In doing so, we honour the dedication of countless social care workers who deliver care with compassion, often under extremely challenging circumstances.

In conclusion, these amendments will provide a much-needed boost to the employment allowance for social care providers and introduce a mechanism of accountability that will ensure that the measures are delivering the intended benefits. They are a testament to our commitment to support a sector that is foundational in the well-being of our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these amendments, recognising that those struggling with disabilities and an ever-ageing community, partly thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, need our help. We need to invest in a stronger, fairer and more caring society.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 47 and my own Amendment 65, which is yet another request for an impact assessment. I raised the issues that small businesses and charities will have at our last session, but I shall focus on the social care sector, for some of the reasons that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has explained. This sector faces particular challenges, and to apply a one-size-fits-all to every employer in the UK is in this instance simply heartless and smacks of a policy rushed through without proper consideration of the particular issues in the sector.

The recent Budget, while providing additional funding to social care, does not go far enough to meet the needs of a sector facing increased costs from the rising national living wage and employers’ NI contributions. There is the £600 million grant, which we assume is to be shared between adult and children’s social care, but it is far from sufficient to address the estimated £3.7 billion increase in costs facing providers due to the changes announced in the Budget, which represent the 10.6% increase in pay from April 2025.

We know of course that councils will be expected to fill much of this gap through council tax precepts and local revenue, but, even with the £600 million grant, there is still a £1.3 billion shortfall that local authorities have. That figure relates only to the basic costs of providing care, with no consideration of inflation, the resources required to address ongoing workforce challenges, or the increased capacity, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned, of a growing ageing population. Because of this, there are reasons to believe that the estimates of a £2.24 billion gap for older person residential care is a conservative figure. If this is added to the homecare deficit, reported to be £1.76 billion, and the unquantified gap for working-age adults, the total gap between the average fee paid by local authorities and the actual costs of providing care could be significantly higher than the £4 billion.

I appreciate that these figures are so large that it is possibly difficult to take them all in and relate to them. If I may, I shall look on a micro basis at organisations I happen to know about personally. I am sure that each of us has a connection with such an organisation locally. In my case, I have connections with Jewish Care, which is Anglo-Jewry’s leading health and social care charity for the Jewish community in London and the south-east. It touches the lives of 12,000 people every week—including, of course, Holocaust survivors.

Jewish Care operates nine care homes, which provide a range of services, including fabulous residential care and also dementia care, mental health care and nursing care. It manages four retirement living schemes and an assisted living scheme, nine community centres and three centres for people living with dementia. My interest is that I was a trustee of Jewish Care, and I am still a proud fundraiser for it. I have been a patron for more than 25 years. I am grateful to Jewish Care for sharing with me its concerns, which reflect those of the whole industry.

In context, Jewish Care raises some £20 million in revenue donations—voluntary gifts. The total increase in workforce costs as a result of this Budget is estimated by Jewish Care at £1.1 million. The increase in the percentage for NICs from 13.8% to 15% increases the workforce costs by £400,000 and the lowering of the threshold, which we all know about, results in a further £700,000—hence £1.1 million.

Of course, it is disproportionately affected because it is a large employer with very many part-time staff. The immediate impact is that carers’ salaries will not be raised, as would otherwise have been the case. It will also force the charity to make choices about how care homes are operated and, just as importantly, to divert investments in other community-focused services. One specific example is that, until the announcement of the NI increases, it was planning to open a much-needed dementia day centre. It was all planned and ready to go, but these additional costs have forced Jewish Care to put that on hold. This is real damage that the Government are causing to people’s lives, and it is particularly poignant because both Wes Streeting and the Prime Minister proclaimed themselves, as recently as last June, just before the election, to be huge supporters of this charity and its objectives.