National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

In opposing the amendments in this first group, I am opposing all the wrecking 38. All add damaging complexity to the Bill and scatter public funds in an ill-considered manner. All should be withdrawn.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I echo some of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who identified some key Scottish voluntary organisations that play a vital role in supporting particularly vulnerable people.

I draw attention to CrossReach, the social care arm of the Church of Scotland. CrossReach employs something like 16,000 people. Over recent years it has been able to support its services by drawing on reserves to the extent of not thousands but millions of pounds. That sort of thing is not sustainable. It has 32,000 beneficiaries across Scotland. In my year as moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, I remember visiting many of these facilities and seeing the valuable work done by CrossReach in supporting young children, many of whom had disabilities. It also supports drug and alcohol rehabilitation schemes, elderly care and care homes, and young people with learning difficulties moving from the school environment into the adult environment. The work being done was quite remarkable. I fear that you cannot continue to run down your reserves for ever.

I received representations from the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland, which surveyed its members. More than 50 members participated, with a combined expenditure of £850 million, employing around 28,000 staff and supporting 230,000 people across Scotland. In the responses, 57% of respondents were seriously considering handing contracts back to commissioners next year; 55% were considering reducing the amount of support available to beneficiaries in services they do not plan to continue next year; 92% said that if employers’ national insurance contribution changes are not fully reimbursed, it will negatively impact on pay awards; 88% said it will negatively impact on staff pay differentials; 67% are budgeting for 2025-26 on the basis that they expect to reach financial balance only through the use of reserves, and 91% of these said they will no longer be a going concern within four years if they continue to reach financial balance through drawing down reserves in this way.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, says, but when CrossReach is spending millions of its own reserves, that is not exactly taxpayers’ money. I will not make the excuse that these are unintended consequences; one must assume the Government know what they are doing, even if that is a bit of a far stretch. I would like to know what impact assessment the Government have made of the cost to the public purse if these services are withdrawn. If it is not a cost to the public purse, it is a cost to vulnerable people the length and breadth of this country. That is a completely unacceptable position for the Government to take up. I would like the Minister to tell us the impact assessment of the consequences if some of these services have to be withdrawn.

In my exchanges with the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland, it flagged up to me, only at the very end of last week, a possible problem with some of the definitions. You have English organisations with legislation passed by this Parliament, Welsh ones with legislation passed by the Welsh Senedd and Scottish ones with legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. But, for example, “domiciliary support service” in Amendment 1 is not a definition that is known to Scottish legislation. It was too late to table a manuscript amendment to try to address that. The coalition also wanted some time to try to see what precisely needed to be done to extend it to Scotland. I am sure the House would agree that if this amendment is carried, we would also like to make sure it is fully adequate for the entire United Kingdom, not just for some parts of it. I therefore propose to table an amendment at Third Reading, if my noble friend’s amendment is carried, to try to address the specific Scottish issue.

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

I shall speak briefly to support the arguments and analysis of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and to remind your Lordships of the comments at Second Reading of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, who said that if we aggregate the reductions in employee national insurance that were introduced in the last year of the last Government with the effects of this Bill, the effect is about net unchanged. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell has said, all the various causes and organisations that will be proposed as excepted have benefited as employers, in effect, from the employee national insurance cut. Therefore, if they have to moderate their future wage rises, the net income over that period of 12 or 18 months will essentially be the same. That seems to me another argument for treating all the 38 amendments to which my noble friend referred as a heartfelt cry for help that has already been given.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

1: Clause 1, page 1, leave out line 13 and insert—
“(aa) a person providing a service who is regulated under section 47(1)(a) or 47(1)(b) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010,”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

In my speech on Report on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Barker, I expressed support for the amendment but flagged up that I had only recently been alerted to the possible glitch in it as it related to Scotland. Specifically, the difficulty stems from the fact that the term “domiciliary support service” is not defined in Scottish legislation, and therefore the provisions of the amendment would not apply to parallel services in Scotland. I flagged that up and that I might seek to address this at Third Reading.

I must confess that it was not easy to find wording that met the tidying-up criteria stipulated for Third Reading amendments. Some possible wording could well have extended the services in Scotland beyond those in the other parts of the United Kingdom. I am very grateful to Rachel Cackett and Chris Small from the Coalition for Care and Support Providers in Scotland for their help in trying to address this issue and to the Public Bill Office, especially Donna Davidson, for assistance in framing an amendment which satisfied the tidying-up rule.

This is a modest amendment. It is intended to achieve consistency of treatment for certain care providers right across the United Kingdom. I hope my comments will commend themselves to my noble friend Lady Kramer, whose name is on the first amendment, and I hope the Minister can accept this tidying-up provision. I acknowledge that it would be without prejudice to how the Government intend to proceed in the other place with this clause as amended, but at least it would mean that it went to the other place with a degree of consistency across these islands.

Before I sit down, I apologise that, in my contribution on Report, I inadvertently said that CrossReach, the social care arm of the Church of Scotland, employed 16,000 people whereas it is 1,600. When I got my handwritten notes back from Hansard, I noted that I had actually written down the correct figure, so my error was either due to my handwriting or my eyesight. I have corrected that in the Official Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I regard this amendment, although obviously achieving consistency with treatment in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as just another of the irresponsible measures we have seen from Opposition Benches. One will have noticed very clearly that there are no proposals whatever on how the expenditure should be funded. As a way of managing public expenditure, this is not the way to do it.

Public expenditure should be taken seriously as a means of deciding the structure, composition and scale of expenditure. Simply scattering money by proposing amendments such as this to the national insurance Bill is not a responsible way of going about this fiscal process.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to make a minor adjustment to the Bill to more accurately define care workers in Scotland. While the amendment does not change the fundamental principles or objectives of the Bill, it enhances the clarity and precision of the text. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have participated in this debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for accepting the spirit of the amendment to what was originally her and my noble friend Lady Barker’s amendment. I also thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has accepted the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has been very consistent; he said much the same last week. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made the point that, if the increase in national insurance contributions from bodies in the charitable sector should lead to diminution of services, it will be the people in receipt of the services who will suffer. That, in turn, could put a burden on government, possibly greater than the cost of being consistent with this amendment.

With that, and with thanks also to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I am pleased to move this amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed.