National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to open proceedings with my noble friend Lord Altrincham on our first day in Committee and to be joined in this group by my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

This is not a Bill we welcome. Contributors to research done by HMRC published last year were critical of all the hypothetical scenarios put forward by the Government, including the £2,000 cap, which I believe was seen as the most complicated option presented. This proposal will add to administrative burdens on business, as will become clear when we debate later amendments, especially where people have multiple jobs, start or change employment or vary what they do seasonally.

We are also greatly concerned that it will limit incentives to save, punish normal working people for making prudent and sensible decisions, and reduce pension adequacy. Pensions adequacy is one of the central long-term economic challenges facing this country and, under this Government, it is only set to get far worse. Today we are looking at another small nail in the coffin of such adequacy. Of course, the proposal was not in the Labour manifesto, which I think promised not to raise taxes on working people.

The research by HMRC has shown that employers were seriously concerned that

“changing the pension system could inevitably cause confusion and risk people becoming more disengaged with pensions”.

Against this unsatisfactory background, Amendments 1 and 14 make a simple but very important clarification, which is to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the £2,000 cap. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, one-quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, and who will be hit by the changes that this Bill will bring in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap, with possibly greater numbers joining them, as the cap is not indexed. The Minister might dispute those specific numbers, but even he conceded at Second Reading that people earning under £30,000 would be affected by this change.

Not only does this contrast starkly with the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the Explanatory Notes and by the Minister at Second Reading, to affect only higher earners; it also disproportionately affects lower-paid workers. Salary sacrifice, as we know, allows an employee to give up a portion of their pay so that it is paid directly into their pension. That does not just attract income tax relief, as all pension contributions do; it also enables national insurance contributions to be saved on the amount transferred. So it is the contribution that working people pay every month that lies at the heart of this issue. Higher rate taxpayers continue to benefit from relief related to their tax rate of 40%. Basic rate taxpayers benefit less, since their tax rate is only 20%. We are talking, on Treasury estimates, about 850,000 basic rate taxpayers.

For a basic rate taxpayer, the 8% national insurance loss amounts to two-fifths of the value of their income tax relief. In absolute terms, the marginal cost of this policy is four times higher for lower-paid workers than for those on higher incomes. The problem goes further: this is a harsher blow to certain groups of savers than many had anticipated, particularly those repaying student loans. That is why I very much support Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, which would prevent those repaying student loans from being hit by a double whammy. I will leave it to him to explain the detail.

Graduates begin repaying their loans once earnings exceed £28,745, at a rate of 9% if they are on the plan 2 scheme. If the Bill is unamended, graduates using salary sacrifice will no longer see that 9% effectively redirected into their pension via salary sacrifice once they exceed the £2,000 cap. For those individuals, the effective loss is not just 8% in national insurance but 17% at the margin.

This comes at a time when the newspapers are full of furious comment about the high interest rates—inflation plus a huge 3%—payable on plan 2 loans. The announcement over the weekend by Kemi Badenoch to support a cut in the rate of interest charged on some student loans issued in the decade up to 2023 is therefore most welcome and is a clear step toward addressing this problem, which the Government, distressingly, seem content to live with.

The interaction between that major issue of public concern today and this Bill on salary sacrifice comes through clearly in a comment from the director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. She said:

“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay”.


At a time when we are urging people to do the right thing—to save, to plan ahead and to take responsibility for their retirement—the Government are choosing to hit lower-paid workers harder. That is the unavoidable consequence of how this policy operates in practice.

Worse still, it falls most heavily on a younger generation who already face higher housing costs, who paid for their university education and who now find work taxed more heavily under this Government’s jobs tax—last year’s £25 billion NICs changes, which we discussed in this Room and which we rightly warned would devastate youth employment. Because that prediction has proved accurate, especially for young people, the Government would be wise to listen to the concerns aired today and outside and make changes to this Bill. It is ironic in a way that we are considering this at the same time as the Pension Schemes Bill, which is designed to improve pension saving and the incentive to save. We are doing the opposite here: making pension saving harder, less attractive and less fair.

Our amendments provide a simple solution for the Minister. By exempting basic rate taxpayers from coming under the cap, we would ensure that the Government’s stated aim is achieved and that we modify what is in effect a regressive tax. Our amendment offers a simple, targeted means of mitigating the harm that this policy will cause to some of the more financially vulnerable people in our society and I urge the Minister to accept it. If he cannot, he should explain to the Committee why his Government are choosing to disincentivise people from taking responsibility for their own future at precisely the moment when state pensions are under significant strain, which is set to intensify in the years ahead. Lower savings today means lower retirement income tomorrow and greater reliance on the state for future needs.

I turn to my Amendments 2 and 15, which ask the Minister a very simple question. What precisely does the Treasury mean by a “higher earner”? Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government have repeatedly justified this policy on the basis that it is targeted at higher earners. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, described the reforms as “fair and balanced” and said that they,

“protect lower and middle earners”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. 1684.]

Similarly, the Explanatory Notes state plainly that the Bill

“limits the NICs relief available to higher earners”.

Those are the Government’s words, but nowhere in the Bill, in the Explanatory Notes or in the Minister’s speech is the term “higher earner” actually defined.

That is a serious matter, because the practical effect of this policy suggests that it reaches well beyond any intuitive understanding of what a “higher earner” might be. The Minister has already acknowledged that individuals earning £30,000 and below will be affected. Industry experts have warned that those earning between £30,000 and £60,000 are likely to feel the impact most acutely. Median earnings in the UK are around £37,000 and, in London, they are £10,000 greater. Given this, who are these “higher earners” to whom the Treasury refers?

Since the election, we have heard a succession of phrases from the Treasury: working people, ordinary earners, higher earners. The language shifts, but what has remained constant is the refusal to define these terms. When this House considered the national insurance Bill last year, we warned that the burden would ultimately fall on working people. That proved correct; and the same risk arises here that rhetoric about protecting lower and middle earners does not align with the actual distributional impact of the policy, and the Government are allowed to get away with it because they never set the goalposts in the first place. If the Government’s objective is generally to protect those on lower and middle incomes, that objective must be capable of scrutiny. Scrutiny requires definition. Without definition, we cannot assess whether the Government are meeting their own stated aims. That seems a basic requirement of transparency in fiscal policy-making. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall congratulate my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Amendments 1 and 2, then I will speak to my Amendments 3 and 16.

This Bill has a number of disadvantages to the economy and society, as it penalises pension saving and retirement security while, of course, leading to higher costs and a higher administrative burden for employers. It may also lead to some employers reducing pension generosity or even scrapping salary sacrifice schemes altogether, so it may well discourage and disincentivise good behaviour. One has to question whether the limited expected tax yield justifies the cost, particularly as we know that behavioural response will reduce the amount of tax generated, and it simply is not fair for many people, disproportionately affecting certain groups such as savers and lower-income earners.

However, the Government cannot argue that it was in their manifesto, because it was not. In fact, it was the reverse—the manifesto pledged no increases in tax, including national insurance. We can argue that it is important that we have a very good look at certain aspects of this Bill and try to point out its shortcomings, together with making some constructive and, I hope, helpful amendments. After all, it looks like some 44% of employees using salary sacrifice for pensions will be impacted by this measure. It is important that we look at the Bill in detail, as the Society of Pension Professionals—SPP—has warned the Government that planned restrictions to salary sacrifice could reduce retirement saving and increase costs for hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of workers. The SPP has warned that the changes are likely to reduce pension savings at a time when government figures already show that 15 million people are not saving enough for adequate retirement; that rises to 25 million if the state pension triple lock is removed.

The Reward and Employee Benefits Association has warned that this Bill will put strain on businesses and push millions of people into poorer retirement. In a survey it undertook, an overwhelming 99% of businesses said the organisation would be affected by the cap and 70% said this Bill would increase the administrative burden. Furthermore, a third of businesses expect the change will make it difficult for them to attract and retain talent. It has been described as a change from sleepwalking into a retirement crisis into speedwalking into one.

I appreciate that all I have said is somewhat of a preamble, but it needs to be said, and it will be said by me only once, although it applies to all the amendments we will discuss today and possibly on Thursday—although I gather the plan now is to curtail debate today if at all practical. Is the noble Lord waving at me? Does he not know either? Fair enough. I always pay attention to Government Whips waving at me.

I turn to Amendments 3 and 16—parallel amendments because of Northern Ireland—in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They deal with the complications this Bill brings in respect of student loans. I appreciate this is a little technical and complicated and may not be best resolved by debate in this Committee so much as by discussion between all relevant parties before Report. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for setting me up to explain it all. I will do my best but, as I say, this may be a difficult format in which so to do.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lord, I have added my name to Amendment 326A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I agree with all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in introducing it, and, indeed, with the convincing analysis by my noble friend Lord Sharpe.

Noble Lords may recall that I come to the scrutiny of the Bill constructively, having worked for Tesco for many years and enjoyed excellent relations with the USDAW union, the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, and with the trade unions in general, under the noble Lord, Lord Monks, at that time. We always tried to treat people well, and the success of the business was a testimony to that. We complied with the law.

However, the law is now changing, and I am afraid that this Committee has shown that the Bill needs further work. As drafted, it will be a huge check on growth and will undermine the competitiveness of which we have rightly been very proud in the UK. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned earlier the worrying research by the Institute of Directors that reveals that seven in 10 business leaders surveyed believe that the Employment Rights Bill will have a negative impact on UK economic growth.

I have two particular examples, which I hope the Minister will look at again. First, Ministers—or rather their civil servant agents, and possibly even the trade unions—will be able to take a legal case where an employee is unwilling to pursue a complaint. That is inappropriate and unfair; consent is such an important principle. It also risks putting further pressure on the already struggling tribunal system.

Secondly, and I apologise that this example has already been mentioned, the Bill will radically reduce the effectiveness of the labour market by giving employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of their employment. Other employees will be disadvantaged, as those who are slack, do a poor job or play the system will not be able to be dislodged without a long tribunal case. This will hit good employees who need to cover for their fellows.

The Minister has very helpfully agreed that there should be a probation period during which suitable arrangements can be made in such circumstances, but we have no detail. All of that will go into regulations, which we will not be able to reverse. That is why I feel so strongly about this evening’s amendment on growth and competitiveness. This would apply when regulations were being made by Ministers. There is, unfortunately, a plethora—a cornucopia—of powers in the Bill. It is essential that Ministers, here and in the devolved Administrations, to which our amendment refers, should be required to look at the impact on UK economic growth and competitiveness when they are making regulations. Otherwise, I fear that the growth objective of this Government is for the birds.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name and in so doing support the other amendments in the group, all of which have been most eloquently described by my noble friends, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom is right that the Government’s stated objective of growth, which is a commendable objective, is hampered by some aspects of this Bill. All I am asking for is some time for the real effect and impact of this Bill to be assessed, particularly in respect of small and medium-sized businesses, each and every one of which that I have spoken to to explain what is in this Bill is very unhappy about the consequences that it will have for their business, be it small or medium.

All credit to the Labour Government that, when instructing regulators and creating new regulations, particularly in the financial services market, they have been very clear to the regulators that they must not impede economic growth, and I commend them for that—it is absolutely right. I encourage them to take their own advice and allow this Bill to have an overriding principle that anything and everything in it is intended to promote and help growth. There does not seem to be anything controversial to be afraid of in that respect, and therefore I encourage them to accept the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lady Penn.

My amendments are just asking for time to consider matters. They cover two areas: business and union funding. Very many small and medium-sized businesses will have read the Times comment a few days ago, which I will repeat to your Lordships because it is bang on. It points out that:

“Four in five businesses expect their costs to rise in the wake of the reforms, though ministers have shown little interest in their views. The inevitable result will be a wave of redundancies, hiring freezes, curbs on training and a rise in automation”.


A rise in automation is, of course, a good thing, but it will inevitably lead to greater unemployment. There is no question about it. Every single business I have been talking to has said it is freezing hiring people until they get to understand this Bill better. As the Times points out:

“That is a counterintuitive way to buttress workers’ rights, to say the least”.


and the fact that, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe explained,

“taxpayers will be called upon to foot the bill, size yet unknown, for the FWA’s operations adds insult to economic injury”.

The Times points out that:

“It is an irony that Labour’s reforms will harm the very individuals they are designed to help. Labour should recognise that in requiring the taxpayer to potentially underwrite the activities of trade unions, they are not only recklessly introducing unnecessary frictions to the labour market, but making inappropriate demands on public money”,


because that is where it will fall. The Times is quite clear when it says:

“Labour ought to think again”.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. My noble friend and I worked on the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, which I am pleased has provided good use here on in. Of course, she has a most distinguished business career, not just, as we all know, in very large financial services companies but as my president at the Institute of Chartered Accountants, where she interacted with many small and medium-sized businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and I spent the turn of the year discussing the Bill and its ramifications.

I speak as someone who takes a particular interest in SMEs, for reasons I will explain. I am, of course, in full support of this small group of amendments—as are, I think, all business representative bodies. The FSB, which is the UK’s largest employer group, has said that this will

“wreak havoc on our already fragile economy”.

We have had survey after survey: 1,270 companies were surveyed. Two-thirds of them said that they will curb hiring, and one-third said that they would reduce staff as a result of this Bill. The aforementioned Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development discovered that 25% of its members will be considering lay-offs as a direct result of this Bill. The Institute of Directors called it

“a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

As I mentioned, I am particularly close to the SME sector, not least because, in 1989, I started a small business with one partner and one assistant. I should therefore declare an interest that I still own a chunk of shares in that small business, which, when we started, was called Cavendish Corporate Finance and is now Cavendish plc. At this point I normally take a pot-shot at the Labour Front Bench as not having any business experience to talk of—certainly not in the other place—but I have to be much more deferential in this Chamber, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Leong, two years after I started Cavendish Corporate Finance, started Cavendish Publishing, except, of course, that he had much greater success than me. According to Wikipedia, in his first year made £250,000 profit, which is very impressive, because in my first year I lost money, so I have to be suitably deferential. None the less, I am sure the noble Lord will remember those formative years of starting a business, when one was focused on nothing else but that business. Clearly, we desperately need people to do the same as the noble Lord and me: to take the risk, start a business, have a go and then employ people.

The decision to employ a person is a very big one. It is the toughest decision for the first person, but it is still tough for the second, third, fourth and fifth. As it happens, we now have 220 people employed at Cavendish, but it took a long time to get there and we had to merge with a number of other companies so to do. For many years my small business would have been covered by my noble friend Lady Noakes’s exemption, and it would need it because, to take on people in a small business, you are recruiting someone not just to do a job of work but to join your culture and your aspirations, and to fit in. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not, and when it does not you have to make difficult decisions to make changes. The fact that we are now allowed to let people go relatively easily encourages people such as me to take a chance and employ someone where I would not otherwise do so.

I am very worried that this Bill will lead to a reduction in business growth and, in particular, in employment. Its main burdens will be borne by small businesses. I think the Minister cited five companies that she said were broadly supportive of the Bill. All but one were larger companies, and one was actually the Co-op—I am not sure that entirely counts. Another was IKEA, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could cite the support from IKEA, because I cannot find it. The SME sector realises that the financial burden that the Bill imposes of some £5 billion will largely fall on it, and it is very worried. So the first issue is financial.

The second issue is operational. SMEs do not have an HR department. They simply do not have the facility to wade through this enormous amount of legislation about how they are supposed to treat their staff. The only way round it is, of course, to deploy an agency at great expense to advise and consult every time there is any HR issue, and it is just another cost for businesses which are, for the most part, feeling pretty fragile, and much more fragile after the horrendous NIC increases that are being imposed on them.

The third hammer blow is that those business just will not hire. They just will not take the risk of hiring new employees, which will, of course, restrict their growth, because the only way a business can grow is to recruit new people with fresh blood, fresh ideas and fresh reach. It is impossible for a business to grow without making hires.

Fourthly, the Bill will make businesses risk averse. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has specifically said that this will make businesses risk averse in all their decisions, because of the extra risks that are imposed on those businesses by the Bill because of the costs and burdens they have to undertake.

Lastly, the fifth problem with the Bill is the lack of consultation. It has been rushed through to meet the 100-day deadline and, as a result, there has not been proper consultation and we are wading through a vast number of amendments that we are trying to get our heads round.

For all those reasons, one accepts that the Bill is in the manifesto and that it has to happen—it is in, in many ways appropriate that it does—but please can we leave out the SME businesses that will struggle with this Bill? Maybe we can bring it in later, suitably amended, but not now.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Government would do themselves a great deal of good if they made special arrangements for small business. They are well precedented: we have the VAT threshold, the employment allowance and the small business audit, and it would be a powerful addition to their forthcoming White Paper or Green Paper on small businesses.

Everyone knows that I often speak in favour of small business and have very good relations with the Federation of Small Businesses, so I obviously support the expert trio of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who we should listen to. To put it simply, either we need some special arrangements for small businesses, or—and it might be even better—we need changes to the Bill to remove the bureaucratic provisions that are going to get in the way of success; to look at the lack of flexibility and remedy it; and to avoid the inevitable huge increase in tribunal cases and the overuse of delegated powers. I encourage the Minister to think creatively in this important area.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am coming to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in a minute.

Of course, we would not do that. Likewise, I believe we can respect where we come from and recognise our rich fabric of community by allowing people who are proven to be good at their job and represent how democracy came to this country over centuries, as power was wrestled from the monarchy, to be allowed to continue to have a presence here.

As a meritocrat, I accept the argument that the best people should be appointed to this House, and it is not as if we would start from here by appointing new hereditaries—although my mum keeps telling me that she reckons I am up for an earldom, but I think that is unlikely. I hasten to add that, in my view, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, anyone in this House who does not contribute sufficiently and appropriately should be asked to leave forthwith. This amendment would allow people who are clearly capable, and who have the hugely valuable assets of institutional memory and years of experience, to remain.

I had in my script to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is right—it is not an expression I am used to, but she none the less makes the point that the hereditaries in this House fought to come in, through an election, because they wanted to serve.

If we are totally honest with ourselves, there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, a certain randomness as to why any of us are here. The little that I know about the appointment process has shown me that it is perhaps more random than is generally recognised. I suggest to the Committee that to adopt the amendment is to do the right thing for people who have served us well and continue so to do.

We are told that poll after poll supports the abolition of hereditaries, and that might be true—I am not so sure. Even if it is, I think most people would accept that there is room for a very small percentage of Members of this House to come from a hereditary background and be allowed to serve their time. This amendment is in another fine British tradition: for a suitable compromise to be acceptable.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important Bill, and I am sorry not to have spoken on it before, owing to my commitments on the Front Bench at a busy time for the economy. My noble friend Lady Mobarik is right to press the Government on the transitional arrangements. I will focus on two points in that context. The first is the loss of talent and experience that we face, and the damage that that could do to our scrutiny function at a time of great challenge and change in our country. The second is the pressure that will grow for an elected House if all our hereditary Peers disappear overnight, as currently planned.

I have been reading a book called Judgement at Work by Andrew Likierman, a former dean of the London Business School. He defines judgment as

“the combination of personal qualities with relevant knowledge and experience … to make decisions or to form opinions”.

Length of time in a role, or a succession of roles, improves judgment because prior experiences remain accessible sources of knowledge and provide an understanding of success and failure.

We are lucky to have many long servers among our hereditary Peers—280 years of service, in the words of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. Many also have experience of responsibility outside government and have learned, over time, to cope with complexity and risk, to listen, to work with others and to know who to trust. Those are all ingredients of judgment—soundness of judgment—as well. In view of what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, I should add “hard work” as a very important quality that has been demonstrated by the hereditary Peers.

They also come from across the country. We heard from my noble friend Lady Mobarik about Scotland and from my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee about the importance of Northern Ireland representation. They provide a good mix, as we have seen today, with other Members of the House who are often from political backgrounds and very focused on the south-east.

To develop the argument, I will cite three examples. The first is our deputy Conservative leader, my noble friend Lord Howe. He has sat in this House for 40 years and is a master of the art of scrutiny in the most courteous and compelling way. When I arrived, he was a Health Minister and the person whom I and most others chose to model ourselves on—effective at the Dispatch Box, in the tea rooms and in Whitehall. More recently, he steered the difficult legislation on infected blood through the House, working across party to excellent effect. All that experience as a Minister of Agriculture, Health, Defence and at the FCO, and in opposition, is helpful to the Government of the day and to the House as a whole.

My second example is the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on amendments to the national insurance contributions Bill. He worked as a foreign correspondent at the start of his career, but he is a serial entrepreneur and was able to produce spreadsheets on the impact of the NICs changes on small businesses he was involved with—which the Treasury unfortunately had refused to provide. It would be a great pity to lose that practical business voice. Some life Peers, including myself, speak in the House with the benefit of business spectacles, but, of course, we get out of date as we cease to be involved with business day to day. Keeping voices such as that of my noble friend Lord Londesborough would help us to reach sound, common-sense judgments from experience.

Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has an impressive background in finance and he brings that to our debates and committees. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, noted the hereditaries’ important role in committees. I highlight the valuable role the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, played in particular as chair of the House’s Finance Committee. He may not thank me for saying so, as the concept probably will not see the light of day, but he suggested to me the brilliant idea of dealing with the restoration of the Palace of Westminster by building a small US-style service tower in one of the courtyards, no doubt in Pugin style, and then concreting in the basement services. This novel idea would reduce the risk of fire and of asbestos contamination during the renovation and, I suspect, would cost much less. The point is that it shows the value of critical thinking—we must not lose that.

That brings me on to my second theme. I think the current mixture of Peers appointed by successive Prime Ministers, especially if there are not too many of them, Bishops and the historic element, just about works, partly because of the mix of views, experience, age and skills that are represented. Without those who are currently hereditaries, it becomes much more difficult to justify a wholly appointed House. Moreover, giving a lot of power to the great and the good on HOLAC would not help at all. I believe that, if we indulge the brutal decapitation of the hereditary Peers later this year, we will rightly face growing demands for an elected House. Noble Lords should reflect on this and on the discussions today around my noble friend’s amendment before they vote on this Bill. In the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, we need evolution, not revolution.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I want to raise an objection to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which accused us of making amendments to spray public funding around. We made a number of suggestions as to how government could raise revenue in other ways, and government does flex itself, as we have seen in the increasing defence expenditure and reduction in overseas aid, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do outside of a Budget.

When the chief executive of a hospice says publicly that, as a result of this legislation, people may die in greater pain and agony than would otherwise be the case, I think it is perfectly reasonable for this to be drawn to your Lordships’ attention and for amendments to be discussed.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am concluding for the Opposition on this amendment. We are content with the amendment, which we see as a technical, tidying-up amendment.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

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.