Employers

Patrick Spencer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman drawing attention to the importance of food security as part of our national security, he and I take a different approach to energy security. The reforms that we are implementing as a Government, including through investment in home-grown, independent sources of energy to increase our energy security and make us more independent from fossil fuel prices around the world, are crucial to bringing bills down over time and ensuring greater energy independence and energy security. That is what the Government are doing, and that is how we see ourselves responding to one of the greatest pressures that many households and businesses face: the immediate and long-term costs of energy.

I was talking about employers recognising the importance of fiscal discipline in their own businesses, just as the Government recognise the importance of fiscal discipline for the country. We know that this Government inherited a crisis in our public services, our public finances and the cost of living. NHS waiting lists were at record levels, children worked in portacabins as school roofs crumbled, and rivers were filled with polluted waste. Billions of pounds of spending commitments had not been funded or even properly disclosed to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Faced with that reality, any responsible Government would have to act. We kept our manifesto commitment to working people not to increase their income tax, their national insurance or VAT, and we went further by freezing fuel duty and raising the national minimum wage.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will make some progress, as I have taken a few interventions. Maybe I will address the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment.

After taking office, we had to take decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances and repair our broken public services. It was to restore stability in the public finances and to get our NHS and other essential services back on their feet that we increased national insurance contributions from employers. In making that change, we also more than doubled the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 so that around 900,000 employers—around 40% of employers—have no employer national insurance liability at all.

As I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), we maintained reliefs for those employing younger workers, with businesses able to claim employer national insurance contribution reliefs, including for those aged under 21 and apprentices under the age of 25. That means that employers pay no employer national insurance contributions for employees under the age of 21 or apprentices under the age of 25 on earnings up to £50,270, which saves up to £6,750 a year for each eligible employee.

We know that the decision to increase employer national insurance contributions had an impact on businesses, but we recognise that because of that choice and others, we have been able to put the NHS back on its feet, with waiting lists down by more than 250,000 since the Government came into power. As well as getting the NHS back on its feet, our fiscal rules and the discipline of meeting them mean that we are boosting investment in Britain’s future—the investment that families and businesses want and need. Across this Parliament, we will invest an additional £120 billion in Britain’s roads, rail, energy and other infrastructure, which is so important for driving growth, and last year we delivered the highest number of affordable homes in a decade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sandher]

Stop it! The hon. Member is too kind.

I had a sense of pride, because I knew that I had earned that iPod; it was the fruits of my labour. When I was growing up in the ’90s and ’00s, I saw business people doing well, partly because we were growing under a Labour Government, but also because the conditions of business worked. My parents knew that their workers had skills and were healthy, and they also knew that workers and families across the country were living good lives at that point in time. They could afford a decent life, and to spend money down the shops and on the goods that my parents were producing and selling. I saw them do well, and I saw business do well. Part of the reason why I became a member of the Labour party is that I want to see every single person do well and thrive. I saw businesses thrive, and I saw my parents’ business thrive.

I also joined the Labour party because we are the party of work—the clue is in the name. I want every single person in this country to have a good job, but we are quite far away from that, and we have been for quite a while. About 40% of people in full-time work cannot afford to raise a family, because there are not enough good jobs in this country. Post-industrial areas are still post-industrial, and they are the most deprived parts of this nation. They have not been doing well for an incredibly long time. We have to do more to create good jobs across our country.

[Patrick Spencer]

I could not agree more. We should do everything to create jobs. Surely the hon. Member is about to suggest that we cut taxes on businesses. That will create jobs.

[Dr Sandher]

I want to start there. I disagree with the Conservatives’ motion. It effectively says that if we cut national insurance contributions, good jobs will follow. The first thing to note is that, yes, we did raise national insurance contributions in our first Budget, and there are a million more people in work today. The second thing to note is that the Conservatives’ mistaken moral aims would lead to poorer material ends. They are googling; they are finding out the difference between the pay-as-you-earn measure of employment and the Office for National Statistics measure of employment.

There is something else on which I disagree with the Conservatives. I read the document entitled “The Right Way”, which they produced before their conference. It effectively said that if the Government just step away and create the right conditions, businesses will create the prosperity and good jobs that we need. We have seen that this has not worked. Post-industrial areas are still post-industrial. We saw the Government step away in the 1980s, and we saw those areas remain poor over time. In places like Middlesbrough, the employment rate is 20 percentage points lower than the national average. For non-graduate men, the employment rate is down by about 20 percentage points, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her assessment of the performance of the Government Front Benchers—I tried to intervene on the Minister. I have serious concerns; the Minister said, at the Dispatch Box, “We kept our manifesto commitment not to tax working people.” He then said that they introduced a NICs increase for employers, but in the same breath, he said, “Employers are working people.” Do you not agree with me that the Minister clearly does not understand what a business is, and that, in increasing NICs, he has increased taxes on working people and broken a manifesto promise?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Once again, “you” and “your” are not to be used when referencing colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I rise in support of the Opposition motion. I rise to criticise this Government’s attitude towards employers, their disregard for the reality of life running a business, their nonsensical approach to tackling poverty and social mobility, and their maddening approach to the economy.

The reality is that a job is the foundational unit in an economy. It is the immortal gene that is fundamental to economic evolution, growth and prosperity. I say that because a job is, first and foremost, an income. An income keeps a roof over someone’s head, food on the table and the lights on. An income is spent and then passes through the economic supply chain, creating more value and, yes, more jobs. A job is not just an income, however; it is a source of pride, purpose and identity. It offers structure, routine and the opportunity for a sense of self-achievement. It is a source of social inclusion, friendship and support. It is also a stepping stone. The job someone has today connects them to the job opportunity that might come up tomorrow, next week or next month. Without a job today, the probability of being in work in future diminishes greatly.

As a result of those three realities, work is indeed the best route out of poverty and into prosperity, not just for the individual but for the population as a whole. Look what happens when work is degraded. All the evidence shows that long-term unemployment is synonymous with depression, anxiety, social isolation and a shortened life expectancy. The Health Foundation found that people out of work and on benefits are five times more likely to report poor health than those in work. And yet, Members on the Labour Benches are obsessed with talking down the importance of a job. They talk of bad jobs and unfulfilling work. The reality is that the phenomenal growth in employment we experienced between 2010 and the onset of covid coincided with a massive improvement in living standards and a fall in material deprivation.

If Members do not believe me, they should read the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The share of children living in material deprivation fell by a quarter in the six years leading up to the pandemic. By 2017-18, severe material deprivation among working-age families was roughly one fifth lower than it was in 2010. Pensioner material deprivation fell continuously from 2010 onward. Why? Because rising employment and earned income, offset the cuts to welfare. That is what we delivered in government: a high-employment, low-welfare economy, which is in stark contrast to the high-unemployment and high-welfare economy that this Government aspire to.

The Government talk about hope. The Conservatives in government gave people hope of a life off welfare and in work. Four million new jobs were created between 2010 and 2024—4 million people who otherwise would have been left languishing on benefits, 4 million people who could go home on a Friday proud of their contribution to the economy, their family and themselves. The Labour Government cannot help themselves but steam in and ruin the jobs market for so many.

Nowhere is that more the case than in their deluded decision to increase national insurance contributions for employers. Can you imagine the contorted logic of saying, “I am from the Labour party, the party of work, and we want jobs for all, so we have decided to tax the people who create the jobs in the hope that taking money out of their pockets will inevitably mean they will have more money to put into yours.” It does not make any sense.

This Government do not make any sense. They are for Europe, then they are against it, then they are for it again. They want to invest in defence, then they do not, then they do and now they do not. They embarked on the famous prawn sandwich offensive in advance of the last election, only to turn around and backtrack on all that pro-business sentiment. They promised they would not tax working people, then they did.

In the process, we saw a Treasury Minister go on TV and refuse to recognise entrepreneurs, business owners and decent people who have taken a risk to start a business as working people. Well, say that to Jason and Kate of Trulock & Harris in my constituency. Tell Roger, the postmaster in Framingham, who had to put up with Storm Babet but kept on going, that he is not a working person. How about Will, who runs the Greyhound in Pettistree, one of my favourite pubs? People travel from across the country to go and visit him. Tell him he is not a working person.

Tell that to Debbie, the landlady at the Kesgrave Bell, who has served that community for a generation and is loved by her customers. Is she not a working woman? Tell my friend Charlotte, who works day and night on her business selling paper and card products and has done for six years, that she is not a working woman. How about Darren from DK9 in Blakenham? Our children are in the same class at school. He invested in rescue teams that helped find little Noah Woods in Brantham earlier this year. Is he not a working man as well? Or perhaps the team at Realise Futures in North Ipswich who have set up a community interest company supporting disadvantaged people into work—are they not working people either?

These are the people we on this side of the House stand up for: the workers, grafters, innovators and disruptors who work themselves to the bone because they want to make payroll for their staff and do not want to let their customers down. This Government could help them. It is not too late. Cut their taxes, reverse the NICs increase introduced by the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) and help people get a job.

[Several hon. Members rose—]