National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, and then give way.

This tax, purely and simply, is a financial penalty on 940,000 businesses—that is how I look at it. The analysis shows that it is going to cost businesses an average of £26,000 per year per employer. Not content with ruining farmers’ futures through the immoral family farm tax, the Chancellor wants to hammer them with this Bill, too. She is going to make pubs, cafés and restaurants stump up more to cover her jobs tax, without regard for the impact on our high streets or the communities they serve. She is going to squeeze the creative industries, from theatres to film producers, in a desperate attempt to keep this circus on the road. It is crucial that we understand the impact that the Bill will have. That is why Lords amendment 21 requires the Chancellor to carry out a review within six months of the Bill’s impact on the sectors I have described as well as on farming, creative industries, hospitality, retail and universities.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The shadow Minister has mentioned cafés, and when we have been debating this point previously in the House, I have mentioned Basil’s café in Tunbridge Wells. It now informs me that it is having to put its prices up because of the NIC rises. Does the shadow Minister think that we are going to see a bump in the inflation figures as a result of this tax?

[Gareth Davies]

I remind the House that inflation has already gone from 2% to 3% under this Labour Government, and in fact, the OBR scored the Hallowe’en Budget as inflationary. The hon. Gentleman is right that when these tax rises hit, they will be passed on through higher prices. I hope that that will not put pressure on inflation, but it will inevitably do so.

The combination of factors and how they are affecting businesses, including cafés, is not always appreciated either. The national living wage is going up. Conservative Members have welcomed that—we implemented the national living wage—but it is about the context in which it is going up: national insurance is on the rise and business rates relief for hospitality businesses and high street businesses is being reduced from 70% to 40%. All those things are compounding the impact on cafés, such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). They will be devastated, inevitably leading to job freezes or job losses, which I will come to.

From healthcare to charities and small and medium-sized enterprises, I have made the consequences of this Bill clear since it began its stages in the House. Today, the Government have one more chance to change course, because what many people across the country want to know is this. What is this Bill for? We were told that it was a one-off tax rise to fix the foundations of the economy. We were told that there would be no more tax rises after this, yet we find ourselves just a week away from an emergency Budget, with speculation rife that other taxes may have to rise because the Chancellor will not meet her own new fiscal rules. Some are suggesting that Labour will break another pre-election promise and not unfreeze the income tax thresholds in 2028, but will rather extend the freeze to pay down their new debts. That surely cannot be true—the Minister himself gave me his personal assurance in this House that income tax thresholds would be unfrozen from 2028. I would like him to reconfirm that promise to me today, in order to end the speculation.

This is vital context for Members as we consider the amendments before us today. If more tax rises will be needed—if the original justification for this Bill is now void—why should we stomach the Bill’s terrible consequences? Why should Labour MPs have to go out and defend this to their constituents? Why should we allow the Government to punish the sectors that the amendments before us seek to protect? In fact, why must we stand here and see this entire Bill implemented at all?

One impact that hits every sector of our economy is the impact on jobs. Just yesterday, we heard Labour talk about the importance of lifting people out of welfare and getting them back into work, and it is right to do that. As Conservatives, we know that the dignity of work and the security of a regular pay cheque is what lifts us up as a country and lifts families out of poverty. The tragedy is that this Bill has caused so much concern and so much uncertainty that employment is already declining in anticipation of its passing. The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that the Bill will depress workforce participation for years to come.

Put simply, this Government are cutting welfare to boost employment, while at the same time boosting taxes, which will cut jobs. No wonder business confidence has completely and utterly nose-dived. It is inexplicable and entirely avoidable.

Family Businesses

Mike Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that I should put it on the record that you have always been very pro-farmer, and that should never ever be brought into question by anybody in this Chamber.

I have always been extremely proud of our record of supporting farmers up and down the country. That has been the case ever since I first came into the House in 2010, representing a highly rural constituency right in the middle of beautiful Devon. This party should be very proud of the many schemes, financial support packages and so on that it introduced while in government.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I thought that I would let the shadow Chancellor make a little progress in his speech before intervening on him. It seems odd to hear a speech about the economy from the Conservative party without any mention of Liz Truss. Now we hear mention of trade deals. Let me ask him this very directly: does he think that the policies of Liz Truss—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor cannot hear what I am saying, because the Members behind him are shouting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Interventions should be very short. Come to a conclusion quickly.

[Mike Martin]

Does the shadow Chancellor think that the policies of Liz Truss were good for business investment and confidence in the economy?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware of this, but, at the time of the mini-Budget, I was the Chair of the Treasury Committee. I had a lot to say about what was being proposed before it happened, I had a lot to say at the time that it happened and I have had a lot to say since then. All of that is a matter of public record. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady wants to intervene on me, I am very happy to give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Hon. Members: “How do you follow that?] It will be hard—probably with a lower level of energy.

I recently met with Peter, Kate and Edward, who run the two Basil cafés in Tunbridge Wells; there are four across Kent. They are a family business—the subject of today’s motion. [Interruption.] After the damage Conservative Members did to the economy when they were in government, they need to pipe down. The family told me that the combination of the minimum wage and national insurance rises and business rates has them on their knees. The only thing they can do and the only option they have, bearing in mind that they are a family business—their staff are also their friends, and these are hubs in our community—is to lay off staff or, in some cases, not to grow their employment in the way that they had planned.

Zooming out a little, about a month ago I met with the Tunbridge Wells hospitality reps. They are the owners of pubs, restaurants, hotels and bars in Tunbridge Wells, which are all small businesses—most of them are family businesses. As we went around the table, it was the same story from them. The combination of all three measures, coming at the same time, means that they are either looking at laying off staff now or delaying plans for future employment.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for the excellent way in which he is setting out the problems faced by many family businesses in Tunbridge Wells. In Mid Sussex, I recently spoke to the owners of Frank’s Diner on Church Road in Burgess Hill, who said exactly what my hon. Friend has said: they are finding this combination of different moves punishingly hard, and are worried that they are going to have to close their business if things do not improve soon and the Government do not think again. Does he agree that the Government really do need to think again, and think harder, about the impact that their decisions are having on small family businesses?

[Mike Martin]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. This is not hyperbole; these are real stories from real businesses, from people who stay up at night trying to juggle profit and loss, or looking at how they are going to pay their national insurance contributions or their business rates at the end of the month.

We do not have much time, so I want to zoom out a little bit and make a couple of points, followed by an ask of the Minister. For many of us, our first jobs were in hospitality. My first job was as a dishwasher in a hotel when I was 16, and the question is whether a business would employ me now with these laws, or whether they would invest in equipment that could automate that dishwashing to a point at which they do not need to employ so many 16-year-olds. I came from a relatively privileged background, but working in a hotel as a dishwasher, or working as a gardener or a labourer—all the other things that I did when I was young—were incredibly important experiences in forming me into the person I am now. We want businesses to be able to employ people in their first jobs, because we only ever have one first boss.

My second societal point is that hospitality, in particular, sits in the ecosystem of our town centres. It is hospitality, retail and leisure—one of those things will bring people into a town centre, and then they will often go and visit another business from one of the other three corners of that triangle. As has been mentioned by Members on both sides of the House, hospitality in particular acts as a glue in our society, and one of the things I have noticed since being elected last July is how atomised our society is and how many people struggle with a sense of belonging, particularly after the pandemic. We are looking for communities to belong to, and hospitality provides some of the glue that holds us together, whether that is having a pint, meeting your mates for some chips, or whatever else. If our societies are glued together better, all sorts of other things, such as antisocial behaviour, crime and health—social connection improves our health—get better, which of course costs the Government less money on other budgetary lines.

As such, I would like to ask the Minister just one thing. The Budget increased business rates, and I know that the Chancellor is not going to go back on the national insurance rises or the minimum wage. On business rates, though, the Government have indicated that a consultation is currently ongoing, and they are asking people to contribute to it. I ask that we do not just look at this issue in the context of a spreadsheet, as the Treasury often does. That is important—we must support those businesses financially—but we also have to understand that retail, hospitality and leisure in our town centres contribute to the glue that holds our society together. When we reform business rates, we must consider that as well.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell]

I absolutely agree. If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come to exactly that point later on.

My constituency is often in the top 50 for social and economic deprivation, and we are often wholly dependent on the charitable sector picking up people when they are at their lowest and most in need. Charities often do the really hard work in getting those individuals back to a place where they can even begin to access statutory support services, such are the demands placed on them by the services with which they are seeking to engage.

Let me take the example of supported housing. We talk quite rightly about giving people homes, but many of the people in Stoke-on-Trent who access the services that will be impacted by the national insurance contribution increases would not be able to live independently on their own in the months to come if it were not for supported housing. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) points out, that has a huge bearing on the acute cost at the presentation of final service.

Last Friday, Voluntary Action Stoke on Trent, an excellent organisation run by Lisa Healings and her team, convened a meeting of local charities and the three Members of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent. Lisa helped me by compiling some of the specific impacts that the national insurance increase will have on charities and organisations in my community, and with the indulgence of the Committee, I will refer to some of them so that Members can hear the scale of the challenges that we face.

The first relates to the citizens advice bureau in Stoke-on-Trent, which does a phenomenal amount of work. It will see an increase of £150,000 to its national insurance contributions. Although it will be able to mitigate some of that impact, the change will just mean that people wait longer for help, or, perversely, that more people will enter MPs’ caseloads and visit our surgeries because the CAB often signposts to other agencies when it cannot meet demand.

The second largest impact I was told about is to the YMCA North Staffordshire, which will see its NI contributions rise by £101,000. That organisation routinely provides homes for young people who would ordinarily find themselves on the street, works with families to ensure that family units can stay together, supports community meal initiatives to bring together different Stoke-on-Trent communities, and does a lot of work on community cohesion, which is a particularly contentious issue in my city.

A smaller organisation, Savana, which I must declare is run by my ex-wife, although we are still on favourable terms—

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

rose—

[Gareth Snell]

No—I will give way in a second. Savana is the provider of the rape and sexual advice service in Stoke-on-Trent. It gets all its money from the Ministry of Justice; it is essentially running a Government service by virtue of contracts, yet it will now see an increase in its national insurance contributions of something between £16,500 and £17,000, which will reduce the number of people it can support with independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advocates. The other half of its money comes from the Home Office via the police and crime commissioner. Again, that is essentially public money providing a public service that just happens to be provided by a charity that is not covered by the rebate provided to other organisations.

Disability Solutions helps those who are entitled to additional support to access it. That charity brings millions of pounds a year into the city, which has a cumulative economic benefit, because the money brought in is spent on our high streets and in our local economy. The people it helps are not the wealthiest in my city; they quite often have very little in their pockets, and every penny that is given to them is spent in the local economy. They do not hoard it in a savings account, put it into the Cayman Islands or use it as a downpayment on a new car or furniture; they go out and buy food, shoes and school uniforms for their children, or they use it in one of the local entertainment venues.

North Staffs Mind faces an impact of £55,000. That organisation is specifically designed to help people with their mental health, which the Government have rightly identified as a huge inhibitor to economic growth, because if people cannot get their mental health sorted, they cannot get back into work. Another mental health organisation, Changes, wrote to me to say that these changes to national insurance would be unsustainable for them. Finally, the Dove Service is a bereavement counselling service that faces a cost of £2,000. All those organisations are filling a void in state provision in my city.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government put so much political capital into making everyone on the Government Benches, however naturally honest they are, say fibs about the £22 billion. They could at least have used that fig leaf to come up with a more sensible tax strategy. Instead, having pursued that untruth, they none the less came up with an idiotic and backward stance. It is deeply damaging and regrettable.

[Mike Martin]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about a more sensible tax strategy, and we all agree that the change to NICs is an extraordinarily bad idea, particularly given the hit to growth. Where would he raise that amount of tax from?

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Every time I hear someone give a maiden speech in this Chamber, I am really heartened by the passion and expertise of the new intake. As I said in my maiden speech, it is clear that we are going to have not just a good Parliament, but a great Parliament. I look forward to it very much. I welcome the Minister’s speech and the Bill. As is usual on Ukraine, there is agreement across the House. I was not quite expecting this degree of agreement on going further—on not just seizing interest or making loans, but going after assets.

This Bill fulfils the UK’s part of an agreement that the G7 made in June, and we of course want to fulfil our commitments. However, the commitment in that agreement was made before the recent election in the US. As many Members across the House have said, including most recently the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), the security calculus that Europe has applied for the last 80 years has now changed. We can no longer rely on an American security umbrella. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence—there is no disagreement about that in the House. The Government talks of NATO first, but NATO does not work without an American security guarantee, American logistics, or the American backbone that runs through it. It is the same with Ukraine. Since the outbreak of the war in February 2022, the United States has provided approximately 50% of the support for Ukraine. The UK led; that is something that the previous right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip got absolutely right. However, we now face a world in which that support may be withdrawn, and that is not just a supposition. President-elect Trump has said that the Russians can

“do whatever the hell they want”

in Europe. This is a huge problem. We should have woken up to this five or 10 years ago. The fact that we are dealing with it now—well, I hope we are—should arouse the interest of Members in the Chamber today.

I want to outline what the consequences may be of a withdrawal of US support from Ukraine. We may end up with a grubby little deal that would involve taking a marker pen and drawing through Ukraine on a map. The problem with that is that this war is not about territory; those who understand it to be about territory misunderstand it. It is about identity. Russia sees Ukraine as part of its imperial identity. If Ukraine exists as an independent country, then Russia does not exist as an imperial country. It is that simple. We are trying to define the conflict by way of territory, but that it is not how Vladimir Putin sees it.

We may end up with a grubby deal; in effect, the US will withdraw support, and Ukraine will be forced to come to the negotiating table. A line will be drawn on the map through Kharkiv, Donbas and Kherson. However, Vladimir Putin will not stop there. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all allies of ours that the United Kingdom has pledged to defend through NATO, under article 5. If Putin took a bite from Lithuania, and Britain and France stepped forward to defend it, as we are pledged to do under article 5, we would have a huge problem if we then heard from Washington that the US would not follow us.

Even if we do not get a grubby deal that empowers Vladimir Putin, we could end up with the collapse of the Ukrainian frontlines, if the Americans withdraw their support and the Ukrainians decide to fight on. If I was Ukrainian, I would fight on, because of what the Russians did in Bucha and their kidnapping of Ukrainian children. The Ukrainians may fight on, but the frontlines may collapse.

The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) spoke about a refugee crisis. The UN in Kyiv recently carried out a study of the crisis that could follow a collapse of the Ukrainian domestic power system. As we know, the Russians are targeting it at the moment. The UN estimated that between 5 million and 10 million Ukrainians would leave and move into western Europe—and that is just on the collapse of the power system. What would occur if the frontlines collapsed and the murderous, genocidal Russian army started to rampage through western Ukraine?

If we step outside Europe and look at possible consequences of a Ukrainian defeat, we can see that the idea of nuclear proliferation being kept under wraps, which we have cherished for the past 50, 60 or 70 years, would be under threat. The lesson we learn from the conflict is that if a state has nuclear weapons, it can bully its way into invading other states. Iran and other countries will see this and think, “That is something we need to get.” Colleagues have mentioned other autocratic states. China is watching what is happening in Ukraine carefully, as well as the western, European and American response. If we lose in Ukraine, we can kiss goodbye to Taiwan.

This is an existential conflict for Ukraine, in which it must succeed. The Bill goes some way to helping with that, but not far enough. The west collectively has $300 billion of Russian assets. Some $200 billion of those are in Belgium in Euroclear. To put that in context, the US has to date donated or pledged to donate approximately $180 billion to Ukraine, so the total amount of Russian assets we hold is 50% more than the total spend so far from the United States on the war. Given that we may well be losing US support for Ukraine, with all the second-order effects that has for our security, why are we not considering much more carefully sequestering and using those assets for the defence of Ukraine? If not now, when?