National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Report

16:21:00

Clause 1: Rate of secondary Class 1 contributions

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert— “(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means—(a) a person providing a care home service or a domiciliary support service who is regulated under—(i) Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008,(ii) Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, or(iii) Part 5 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010,(b) a person contracted to provide primary care under the provisions of—(i) Part 4 of the National Health Service Act 2006,(ii) Part 4 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, or(iii) sections 17J to 17O of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,(c) a person contracted to provide general dental services under the provisions of Part 2 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992, (d) a person contracted to provide pharmacy services under the provisions of—(i) Part 7 of the National Health Service Act 2006, or(ii) Part 8 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013, or(e) a charitable provider of health and care,(f) a person providing hospice care whether in a hospice or elsewhere, or(g) a carer to whom section 2(3A) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 applies.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement This amendment, together with Baroness Barker’s amendments to Clause 2, page 1, line 12, Clause 2, page 1, line 14, and Clause 2, page 1, line 15 provides that care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commissioned dentists, NHS commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care, and those providing hospice care would continue to pay contributions at current rates.

My Lords, it may be a surprise that I stand up to take part in proceedings at this point, having not taken part in the Bill so far. I do so because my noble friend Lord Scriven is unable to be here. Indeed, my only involvement in the Bill so far was to be the chair when it was in the early stages of its consideration in Grand Committee. I was therefore forced to remain sedentary and say nothing throughout the proceeding. It was very good, actually: I sat and listened to everybody else’s contributions, and that turned out to be excellent preparation for today’s debate, in which I seek to move Amendment 1 and to speak to the consequential amendments in this area. As noble Lords who have taken part in and listened in great detail to previous stages of the Bill will know, the central issue that the amendments are having to address is the sudden imposition of a rather blunt fiscal instrument, in the form of an increase not only to national insurance contributions but to the rate at which they are paid, and the effects that that will have across the whole economy. These amendments address just one part of that wider problem. I should at the outset declare an interest: in my family, we are reliant upon carers. We pay for those carers ourselves, and do so through a private agency. This issue is therefore not academic for me but very personal at the moment. I should also say that before your Lordships today there is a manuscript amendment, for which we thank the clerks for their consideration. This is a tax matter which is UK-wide, but it has effects, which the amendments tabled so far seek to mitigate, in England and Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may well have been contacted by care providers in Scotland who will need similar provisions to enable them to cope with the problems. The problem we are dealing with is that, in the health and social care sector, the sudden imposition of these changes to national insurance, along with the increases in the minimum wage, are going to threaten the existence of large numbers of providers and have a profound impact on budgets. We have a real problem in that the health and social care sector is not solely a statutory one. We have a number of different providers, many of which are small but are related to large statutory providers. Unfortunately, because of the swift nature of the imposition of this rather dramatic change, we are having to come up with ways in which we can mitigate the damaging impact, which means we have had to resort to measures that perhaps we would not otherwise have wanted to take, in seeking to create different classes of employers. The Government have come forward with some of their public sector exemptions because they realise the effect that this is likely to have. But those exemptions will not apply across the board. In particular, they will not apply to the organisations set out in these amendments, such as dentists, pharmacists, providers of care services and hospices, all of which are central to the Government’s other stated policy objective of improving health and of improving the health service and making it a community-based and more preventive service, thereby driving down demand on our health service, which is the greatest problem our NHS is facing at the moment. Because the Bill does not do that—indeed, it cuts across those other policy objectives—we have been forced to take these measures. It would perhaps help noble Lords if I were to explain that 87% of a typical local authority’s budget spend is now on social care. That expenditure is not capital heavy; it is labour heavy and labour intensive. These are not organisations, unlike some of their private sector counterparts, that can suddenly adjust and vary their income streams to a dramatic extent that will enable them to mitigate rapidly or absorb the effects of the imposition of this policy. I listened very carefully in Committee to all the arguments put to my noble friend Lord Scriven, and he and I, and others, went away and redrafted our amendments in order to take on board as many of those criticisms as we could. We have extended the remit of these amendments as far as we possibly can to include private sector providers of NHS services. I agree that there is not the exact equivalence between the private and public sectors that many people would want, but it is, within the scope of this measure, a significant step forward. We did that not least because one of the consequences, perhaps unintended, of the government proposals as they stand is that they will disproportionately affect local authorities that have for prudent reasons sought to outsource much of their provision. If their provision is outsourced, they will be hit and will have no mitigation against this change in national insurance. I sat and thought about this the other night. You could have a realistic situation in which you have two local authorities that have broadly the same demographic profile and challenges, and that probably work to the same acute hospital, yet they could be in a completely different position in terms of their budget, solely because of the imposition of this measure. We on these Benches have been quite clear. We have said that we understand that there is a need to increase funding, not least for health and social care. We believe there are other ways in which that could have been done—by closing capital gains loopholes and doing things such as taxing online gambling and taxing share buybacks. There are a number of ways in which that could be done, and none of them would have the direct counter-effect on policy of changing and moving our National Health Service away from being a very inefficient organisation which does not at the moment have a system which works towards greater productivity, promoting health and driving down demand. For all those reasons, we are proposing these amendments today, and I hope that noble Lords will see the case to support them. I beg to move.

My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment 1 is agreed, I am unable to call Amendments 6, 7 or 9 by reason of pre-emption.

16:30:00

My Lords, I take this opportunity to support the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, in tabling these amendments, in particular Amendment 9A. I declare my interest as advising the board of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I wonder whether, when the Minister comes to respond to this group, he could clarify the position. I noticed that dispensing doctors are not referred to in Amendment 9A, but in effect they probably employ more staff than other GPs, pharmacies or organisations itemised in the amendment. The reason for that is that, in addition to dispensing to regular patients, dispensing doctors also perform a profoundly important role in rural areas where there is no community pharmacy, because their patients have nowhere else to go. A dispensing doctor normally intervenes to dispense in those rare circumstances. I have to say that the reason I am so familiar with dispensing doctors is that my late father and my now retired brother were both dispensing doctors. As dispensing doctors are quite large employers in this regard, is the Minister minded to look favourably on reimbursing them for the additional costs that they will incur through the increase in national insurance contributions, either through the very helpful amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, by adding dispensing doctors to it, or will he look at some other avenue to ensure that the costs incurred by dispensing doctors will be met? I am sure the Minister is aware that pharmacies and dispensing doctors are currently not being fully reimbursed for the costs of medicines that they are dispensing or prescribing, so they are in an acutely difficult position caused by the Government’s announcements on national insurance contributions in the last Budget. I ask him to answer those points in addition to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, which seek to mitigate the effect that the measures in this Bill will have on charities that provide social care. Particular attention needs to be paid to those that provide services in areas where the primary responsibility lies on the public sector. I understand that about one-third of social care staff in Scotland are employed by the voluntary sector. The support that they provide is an essential part of the system of social care in Scotland as a whole, and without their support the public services as currently funded would be quite unable to meet what the public need demands of them. To put a little colour on what I have just been saying, I will return very briefly to an example I gave to the Grand Committee—that of the Cyrenians, a charity that addresses the causes and consequences of homelessness in the south-east of Scotland. It sees homelessness as something which is always about much more than a lack of housing; it cannot be solved simply by building more houses, nor can it be solved by the public sector alone. What the Cyrenians do is help people to avoid becoming homeless in the first place. It provides a range of services, such as mediation and support to families that are at risk of breakdown—which leads in due course to homelessness of one partner or the other. The Cyrenians charity also provides services to ensure that people coming out of hospital are not discharged into homelessness. It runs a residential community which provides accommodation for people with acute psychiatric and mental health problems who have been discharged from a hospital where they have been receiving treatment. These are people who can be discharged only because that support is available. All in all, the Cyrenians run over 60 services with a staff of over 200. It estimates that the increase to national insurance contributions provided for in the Bill will cost it about £170,000 a year. This is a significant burden on its finances which, for various reasons, are already being stretched very thin. I am told that it cannot benefit from any increase in the employment allowance. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the charity believes that it is not eligible, as its class 1 national insurance liabilities were more than £100,000 in the last year. The public sector exemption is not available either. The result is that the charity will no longer be able to provide the training and development that its staff need. That will lead, inevitably, to an erosion in the extent and quality of the service that it offers. Those who will suffer will be those most in need of protection: those who are at risk of, or who are already suffering from, homelessness, for whom the public services cannot provide. Another Scottish charity that works in the area of social care is Ark Housing Association. It is a larger organisation which is in a similar position to that of the Cyrenians in that it seeks to provide services across a large area of Scotland. In its case, these services are offered to vulnerable adults, such as those with a learning disability and other complex needs. As matters stand, that charity too is not eligible for any support from the Government, as it has a turnover of about £24 million per year and employs over 700 people. It estimates that the effect of the Bill on its operations will be, in its own words, “devastating”. As matters stand, the charges that it faces to do its work barely break even, year after year. It estimates that its national insurance increases will amount to a further £600,000 per year. This means that it will not be able to survive without damaging cuts to its services to reduce costs, and even these may not be enough for it to survive. As in the case of the Cyrenians, the people most affected are the thousands of vulnerable people for whom the social care that Ark provides is a vital lifeline, and who have nowhere else to go. It is not an exaggeration to say that, as the Bill stands, social care and support providers in the third sector in Scotland will face a situation of crisis that the public services simply cannot cope with. Something has to give, and the responsibility for this lies with the Government. I hope that the Minister will feel able to assure the House that he recognises that something needs to be done to minimise the impact of these increases on this sector. For the time being, however, I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, if she decides to press her amendment.

My Lords, I am afraid that I too was unable to be present at the earlier stages of the Bill, but I rise to support this amendment—in particular, the provisions relating to hospices. These would have the same effect as later amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, to which I have also put my name. I draw attention to my entry in the register as vice-president and past chairman of Hospice UK. The added burden that the increased contributions will place on the hospice sector are considerable. The extra cost has been estimated at no less than £34 million a year. St Christopher’s Hospice in south London has said that it will face increased costs of around £450,000 a year—equivalent to the cost of nine specialist nurses. Dorothy House hospice in Wiltshire estimates additional costs of £422,000 a year. The Kirkwood Hospice has had to put 33 roles at risk of redundancy, citing the increased national insurance costs as one of the drivers. Nottinghamshire Hospice is also proposing redundancies, again citing these extra costs as one of the factors. These are just some of the examples of the devastating effect that these measures will have on hospice care. This is all so short-sighted. We all know that one of the major challenges facing the NHS is bed-blocking. As I have told your Lordships before, hospices can make a huge contribution to overcoming this challenge by looking after patients in the community, either in hospices or looked after by hospices at home. To make that contribution, hospices need more resources, not fewer, so this change will add to the challenges facing the NHS, not only directly in respect of its own employees but indirectly by diminishing the capacity of hospices to help. The Minister will no doubt refer to the Government’s recent announcement that £100 million would be made available to hospices, and that is indeed welcome. But that money is for capital projects. Not a penny of it is available to defray the extra costs of the increase in national insurance contributions, which we are debating today, so it will have little or no effect on the crisis in hospice care that I have described. I urge the Government to think long and hard about this amendment and to come up with a constructive solution.

My Lords, I find some difficulty in addressing this group of amendments, specifically because these amendments are but a part of 38—out of the total of 44—amendments in the Marshalled List that are essentially all the same. The 38 amendments all propose exemptions to the changes proposed in the Bill, or variations in the various thresholds at which employers’ national insurance is charged. All the amendments have the same internal logic: they are designed to reduce revenue. All 38 are the same; they vary only in the individuals, firms or groups that are to be exempted. The House will, of course, deem many of the individuals and groups not just worthy but really deserving of support. I wish to address the 38 amendments collectively because they are the same. The Liberal Democrat Benches, notably with amendments associated with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seek to exempt providers of care homes or domiciliary care, primary care providers, dentists, pharmacists, charitable providers of healthcare, hospice care, carers and part-time workers. She adds providers of education or childcare to children under five years of age, universities, providers of further or higher education, registered charities, housing associations, small or micro businesses, town councils, parish councils and businesses in the hospitality sector.

16:45:00

Not to be outdone, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville- Rolfe, adds providers of transport for children with special needs, employers of persons under 25 years of age, small charities, all charities, employers in the early years sector and farmers. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, focuses on firms with fewer than 25 staff. All these are to be exempt from the measures in the Bill. Finally, as the coup de grâce, the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, add Amendment 39, which provides for yet further exemptions that they have not actually thought of yet.

The 38 amendments with identical intent add up to a set of wrecking amendments, since they wreck the Chancellor’s Budget judgment. Moreover—this is hugely important in the context of this House considering what is essentially a money Bill, because of the technicalities of national insurance—the 38 amendments embody two serious fiscal errors. First, consider the fact that every exemption, every adjustment of a threshold to diminish revenue, is an expenditure of taxpayers’ money. Are the proposers of the 38 amendments really prepared to endorse this scattergun, blunderbuss approach to public spending? All the proposals in 37 of the 38 amendments involve commendable, valuable public services and contributions to the economy and society, but this wild scattering of public funds is not a serious way to determine the structure of public expenditure.

It might be argued by the proposers of the wrecking 38 that they are only pitting their scattering of funds against unintended consequences of the measures in the Bill, but to make that argument would be the second serious fiscal error. In the raising of revenue, simplicity is a fundamental requirement, as contrasted with the necessary complexity of carefully targeted expenditure decisions. If it is felt that taxpayers’ money should be spent on any or all of the causes outlined in 37 of the 38 amendments, those decisions should be taken as the outcome of a considered spending decision, not by corrupting the revenue system.

Simplicity of taxation is one of the great principles of taxation set out in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. As Smith argued, proposals for raising revenue should always emphasise the reduction of complexity to make compliance easier and administration more efficient and, most important of all, to reduce opportunities for avoidance. The 38 amendments add up to a charter for avoidance. You can be sure that they will be gamed and exploited by those with avoidance skills.

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.

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 1,600 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.

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.

My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill so far, but I want to speak now on behalf of charities. Charities are not for profit and they are not for loss. The impact of the Bill’s proposals provides a fiscal challenge, whichever way we look at it. I understand that the increase proposed will impose on charities about £1.4 billion in additional annual costs, and 87% of charities are worried about absorbing these and other costs that are forthcoming. Charities are emotionally driven and business-led organisations; they give their heart and soul to the people they get up in the morning to serve, and we must make sure that the people who need their services are not impacted detrimentally in any way. While people in the finance departments of organisations, not least the Government, are focused clinically on money, and I understand that, I ask that they look at the impact that the Bill will have on individuals. My dad used to say to me, “Debbie, measure twice and cut once”, and I would like that saying to be applied to decisions in the Bill.

My Lords, I support the Government in opposing all these amendments. Some individually are attractive, especially the later amendment about the level at which national insurance is set. However, I shall not support any of the amendments because I think it is for the Commons and the Government to decide on taxation. It is an unfortunate event that has already been remarked on, and there is an opportunity here to comment and vote on it. I realise the political attraction of forcing the Government to remove these amendments one by one when the Bill returns to the Commons. Some are very attractive—I get that, intuitively —but it seems unfair to unpick a Budget, which is a comprehensive account of the macroeconomics of the country, and then pick off each of these measures by an amendment. I cannot support that; it is good to have the debate, and the Government may decide to change their opinion on any one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made the point that taxation should be simple, and I agree. If every one of these cases were to be included by the Government in their new Budget, I think that it would be incomprehensible for the public in general. Although I see that, individually, some cases are attractive, I cannot support the amendments for the reasons that I have set out.

My Lords, I rise briefly to challenge the analysis of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. He claimed that if we took the health and social care levy employer element and what was proposed here, it would sort of level itself out. It would not. The employer element of the health and social care levy is roughly one third of the amount that is expected to be raised by this Bill. The two cannot be compared.

I support the comments from my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe: I think that it is an important principle that Budgets should be determined by the House of Commons. Those who argue for exemptions should be obliged to explain how they will pay for the tax cuts in those exemptions. If you cut taxes in one area, they will need to be raised somewhere else. That will result in higher marginal rates for everybody else, which do far more damage than low ones.

17:00:00

I also support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I ask the House to spare a thought for the HMRC official. These amendments are being applied to narrow professions and employments and will cause all sorts of problems in determining whether particular businesses or individuals are entitled to the exemptions. We do not need a more complex tax system; it is too complex as it is. I wish we would return to the principles of the late Lord Lawson, who believed in as wide a tax base and as low marginal rates as possible.

Finally, I want to take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Masters—

Noakes.

Many apologies to the noble Baroness; I stand corrected. The cut in employee national insurance was considerable. Looking at the macro effects of employee and employer national insurance on the labour market, I regard the changes that have taken place as broadly neutral across the board.

My Lords, I am not an economist, but I run a small Scottish charity that provides health services. I want to come back on some of the points raised. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and even the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, had had the recess that I have just had—looking at our employees, some of whom have been with us for over 20 years and are highly trained clinical specialists, and telling them that their roles are under threat of redundancy. As I said at an earlier stage of this Bill, I have not been able to participate in it as much as I would have wished because of its effects on my organisation, which are that people will lose their jobs and organisations will lose skill. Those are very difficult things to build up again. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I have been in touch with the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland. I am slightly concerned that these amendments do not cover health and social care services in Scotland. If he is to bring back an amendment at Third Reading, I will happily work with him on it. I would love a simpler tax regime and would absolutely support it. The way to have one is not to have this national insurance increase—that would be very simple. The lists covered by these amendments are all of organisations that support public services and the public sector. These are services that many government agencies are required to provide by law, yet they are farmed out to organisations such as ours, as well as to CrossReach, Ark and others. Frustratingly, this demonstrates a huge lack of understanding by this Government of how these measures will affect vulnerable people—the people who these organisations support. My organisation, Cerebral Palsy Scotland, is a regulated, registered charity, so we cannot put up prices. Our raison d’être is to make our services available to the most vulnerable who cannot pay for them, and so we cannot put up our prices. Yes, we may have benefitted last year from paying slightly less employers’ or employee national insurance, but all our providers—the people who clean our centres, help us with IT, empty our sanitary bins, and things like that—employ people and they are all putting up their costs. Our costs are rising, our national insurance is rising, and because of the minimum wage increases at the same time, it is becoming more and more expensive for us to employ people. The only thing we can therefore do is to cut our cloth and employ fewer people. I do not understand these measures. I support having lists of different sectors, because these are the sectors that are delivering support that gives people choice, quality of life and control over their lives, and that support the NHS and the social care sector, which would otherwise be stuck. This is a measure that will not save public services, as the Minister has told us it has been put in place to do, but that will, I am afraid, crush them.

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment so ably tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I pay tribute to her for her attentive nature during Committee. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that the fact there is this extensive list demonstrates once again the lack of an impact assessment, on which I implored the Minister in Committee. I was a Minister for over 12 years. One thing you learn as a Minister is that, when taking a Bill through, you must consult with and speak to the sectors—you must talk to them and understand their challenges and then address those issues. Unfortunately, that had not been done. Take adult social care, where the impact is close to £1 billion. We may hear from the Minister that this has been addressed in the Budget, but it has not. The Nuffield Trust has said as much: the actual measures put forward in the Budget will be dwarfed by these contributions, and that is just in adult social care. Talk to community pharmacies and they will make a desperate plea, akin to what we have just heard from my noble friend, and say that they will have to shut. Why? Because they cannot afford to keep their employees. Even at this late stage, I implore the Minister to listen, connect and communicate, and, I hope, to take on board some of the challenges and important concerns being put across in this House on behalf of the many different community services that will so desperately be impacted by these national insurance increases.

My Lords, I am somewhat amazed by some of the arguments I have heard in this debate. The Bill is before us and we are a revising House. Our purpose is to debate the Bill, put forward amendments, debate the amendments and vote on them. The idea that we should not be changing this because we should not change the Budget is absurd; it defeats the whole purpose of having the House of Lords. We are a revising Chamber; we bring with us expertise and experience, which many of us would like to think assist the Government in their decisions, particularly when they make bad decisions—of which this is one. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked about Adam Smith’s desire for simplicity, but he also wanted fairness. What has happened here is not fair. If the noble Lord consults the organisations with which I know he has been connected in the charitable and university sector, they will all say that this is a very unfair imposition on their modus operandi. There is a reason why there are so many amendments. The first amendment is excellent, and passing it will deal with all the issues in one go. If it is not successful, other amendments will follow that will detail the sectors on which laws can focus their attention. The noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, and others may not have heard me in Committee, where I attempted to cost the various types of amendments, as well as the whole effect of the Bill, on the charitable sector. We have made attempts to detail them, and in other groups of amendments I will discuss those numbers and invite the Government to comment on them. The absolute total that the charitable sector itself has said that this would impact will be £1.4 billion, out of the alleged £22 billion black hole that the Government claim. We have made suggestions about how this may be recouped in other areas. In Committee, I talked about the enormous damage that the Government are about to impact on the adult social care sector. It is utterly demotivating for the very many people, including me and others in this Chamber, who go out fundraising for such charities, doing our best to help those in need, only now to see the Government snatch it away in such a heartless manner. In Committee, we discussed some of the big numbers. At that stage, I focused on social care and, as an example, the cost that Jewish Care faces—£1.1 million, which it does not have—to pay for this increase in national insurance. This time, I will discuss hospices, because I do not want to repeat what was said in Committee—albeit it was in Grand Committee and so did not allow us the opportunity to vote, which was extremely disappointing. I will look at one hospice: Thames Hospice, which is close to Hurley. I was introduced to it by my then local MP, who is now my noble friend Lady May of your Lordships’ House. Its excellent CEO, Dr Rachael de Caux, is reported as explaining that it will now have to post a £1 million deficit and that the NI increases, together with the national minimum wage increases, will cost it £650,000. This is a charity that raises some £4 million from its fundraising, so that is a very material sum. As she herself memorably put it: “The NHS is supposed to be from cradle to grave and what we have is from cradle to a few months before” the grave. Yes, a £100 million for the sector was announced before Christmas, but, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne explained, it is a one-off spend over two years—actually, it is largely back-ended, with most of it in the second year—and restricted to capital sums. In fact, it is spread over 170 hospices, so it is a bit of an insult to claim that that is proper compensation. Thames Hospice is looking to try to serve 400 people, mainly in their homes. I was very pleased to see that, in the amendment, proposed new paragraph (f) specifically covers those who are being cared for at home. As a charity, it is dependent on the local community for its generosity and financial support. The Government cover only about 30% of its costs, and the hospice has to raise £34,000 a day to provide all its services. The Government know that the demand for these sorts of services will grow. It is estimated that, in Thames Hospice’s catchment area alone, the overall demand for palliative and end-of-life care is expected to grow by at least 9% by 2030, with the number of deaths rising to 4,150 in 2030. Perhaps the Minister can explain to Thames Hospice what it is expected to do, following this attack on hospices by the Government. Is it supposed to turn away people? Will it have to offer less care? It will see more people die in pain and agony, as it cannot offer the palliative care that it wishes to provide. I am sorry to be so graphic, but that is the choice for your Lordships’ House today. How can anyone hold their head up high if they walk through the Division Lobby seeking to cause such damage to the hospice sector?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and others that, in principle, it is not a very good idea to have a system of taxation in which you suddenly start providing dozens of exemptions for particularly chosen groups when it is introduced. Taxation should be simple and collected in the most straightforward fashion across the whole economy, although there will always be bits that are subject to different effects of such taxes. I will be supporting these amendments, mainly as a symbolic sign that I disapprove extremely strongly of the choice of tax rise that the Government made in the Budget. In fact, this increase in employers’ national insurance has had a serious, damaging effect on very important sections of the economy as a whole. Many small and medium-sized businesses—and many giant ones in labour-intensive parts of the economy—are being badly affected at a time when many other features of our financial crisis are affecting them as well. We had some exchanges in the House a few moments ago about the withdrawal of the investment proposals by BMW in Oxford. This country is not an attractive place for investment at the moment, yet we desperately need investment if we are to begin to recover from the appalling stagflation in which the economy is now stuck.

17:15:00

Everybody knew when we fought the general election that whichever party won was going to have to raise taxation because of the appalling fiscal state of the nation. I trust that both party leaderships gave some thought to which particular taxes they would have to raise in the first, inevitably unpopular Budget that it would be the duty of the new Government to introduce. Of course, the choice would have been difficult, but I think the tax chosen was one of the very worst possible, in view of the state of the economy as a whole and, as these amendments illustrate, in view of the particular crisis we face in providing for the lack of social care, and the desperate dependence that so many families have on charitable support, hospices and so on. These amendments illustrate some of the worst effects of the choice that was made.

I will not start a debate about what taxes might be raised. Of course, any tax increase is unpopular and they are all open to objections. I think I probably would have gone for fuel tax or VAT, and looked at air passenger duty—certainly an awful lot of others before, at this particular time, I would have looked at employers’ national insurance.

No doubt the Government will go to desperate attempts in the elected House to get any amendments we pass reversed. They will have to do that. No doubt they will have difficulty, because many MPs will find it very uncomfortable to support that. I certainly think that, as far as this House is concerned, I am attracted by the idea of casting a vote to show how strongly I feel, for the many sentiments that have been expressed, about the damaging effects on many families and many people when hospices, charities and others find their whole work threatened by this unexpected and wholly undesirable imposition.

I think the Minister, certainly as far as this debate in this House is concerned, is defending an indefensible position.

My Lords, I shall be very brief as the leader of the winding speeches. I just join the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, in saying to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Macpherson, that Parliament has given us the responsibility under the national insurance contributions legislation, to come forward with amendments and press them. I am not going to walk away from that responsibility simply because it looks rather difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who talks about simplification, that it is very easy to have a high-level issue such as that, but I am not going to put simplification ahead of what will basically be the cancellation of something like 2 million GP appointments because of the additional costs on GPs. I am not going to sit by and watch dental practices cut back their services, so that we have much more of this DIY dental care that people are carrying out. I am shocked by the rise in dental sepsis alone. I am not going to sit here while pharmacies basically cut their hours and services. I am not going to sit here while adult social care—we have heard about so many cases—basically has to work out how it sets aside the most vulnerable in our society, because that is the implication. We have heard also from hospices. People are being told now that their jobs are at risk. This is not a hypothetical or some exaggerated claim; this is a process that is under way across the community healthcare and social care sectors to absolutely cut back in response to this increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. We are trying to stop a disaster. When they came forward with their proposals, the Government did not absorb the fact the National Health Service does not work in isolation. It is part of a much more holistic, complex landscape, and if you undermine the private elements of both social care and community healthcare, you undermine the NHS, and that surely is not what the Government want to be doing under these circumstances. I could go on because there is so much to be said, but it has been brilliantly said by so many across this House. If the Government were to stand up and say that they accepted this amendment, I think there would be a hallelujah, quite frankly. Will they please understand the problems we are trying to deal with? This is not hypothetical or playing party-political games; this is dealing with a really difficult and serious problem that our society is facing. I do not know quite what I can do in a winding speech, but if I can move anything, I will.

My Lords, I echo much of what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, what my noble friend Lord Ahmad said about it being a pity that the Minister had not engaged more with all those affected, and the plea for fairness from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. This Bill is the most important economic measure the Government have put forward since they took office and, as has become apparent from our debates, especially the detailed examination in Committee, it is a misguided measure with numerous defects. It will hit hardest those sectors that employ more labour, such as care homes and hospices, but there will also be flow-through to SMEs and bigger businesses as they seek to cut costs and staff. We have seen this in action with big names such as Sainsbury’s shedding staff and the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recording collapsing confidence and planned headcount cuts in the surveys. During our debate today, the Opposition are proposing amendments to reduce some of the Bill’s most egregious effects. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. We have to find a way to limit the impact of this ill-thought-out jobs tax. The tax system is not simple and we are where we are because of the choices the Government have made. The changes are having real impacts on real people in their everyday lives: on charities, small businesses, nursery schools, special needs drivers, pubs, young people and—the specific subject of this amendment—care homes, pharmacies, dentists, GP surgeries and hospices. That is why we are supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and will be voting in favour. At every stage throughout the progress of this Bill, we have raised the plight of these sectors because of the decisions the Government made in the Budget. They are facing these changes in a very short timescale, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has rightly said. At every stage, the Government have remained unmoved. The Minister has been stony-faced and utterly unreceptive to the genuine and deeply felt concerns of millions of businesses and charity trustees across the country. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hope, about the Cyrenians, from my noble friend Lady Stedman- Scott about the sheer scale of the impact on charities, and from my noble friend Lady Fraser about the loss of jobs and skills and the difficulties of deciding what to do. These organisations and others are facing a financial cliff edge in April and that is thanks to the Government, who have chosen to put them in this position while at the same time choosing to give a £9.5 billion pay rise to their friends in the public sector, to pledge £8.3 billion to the amorphous GB Energy project and to increase day-to-day spending by £23 billion this year. These were all choices, and it is hospices, charities, healthcare providers, early years settings and small businesses that will pay the price. That is what my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham was saying: he felt that it was the wrong choice. In November last year, the Nuffield Trust predicted that the Government’s jobs tax would cost the independent sector’s social care employers in the region of £940 million in 2025-26, and that is on top of around £1.85 billion more that they need to meet the new minimum wage rates from April. These are all relevant to this amendment. I am particularly concerned about the hospice sector, and that is why I have tabled my own amendment with the support of my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Howard of Lympne. Both my noble friends spoke with great eloquence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so I will not repeat any of that, but I will say that Hospice UK has confirmed to us that the sector is headed for a £60 million deficit this year. The Health Secretary announced £100 million to make sure we are protecting our hospices, but last week the Prime Minister was forced to admit that that is capital funding and will not have a direct impact on the day-to-day costs. Further to that, I understand from boring into the detail that the £26 million that the Minister mentioned in Committee on day 3 represents almost no new money at all; so, we have a big problem. Finally, it was reported that the National Pharmacy Association has taken the unprecedented step of voting for collective action in protest at a £250 million hike in business costs that pharmacists face under the Government. If the Minister will not listen to the Official Opposition, perhaps he will listen to the experts, the GPs, the hospices and the charities, which are all telling us that the Government must think again. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: the Government must act urgently to protect our health and care providers, our GPs and our hospices before it is too late. Should the noble Baroness choose to test the opinion of the House, we will be with her in the Lobby.

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, seeking to maintain the rates and thresholds at their current level for NHS commissioned services including GPs, dentists, social care providers and pharmacists. As noble Lords will know, as a result of the measures in this Bill and wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years, helping to deliver an additional 40,000 elective appointments every week. Primary care providers, general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eyecare are important independent contractors who provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult with these primary care sectors about what services they provide and what money they are entitled to in return under their contract; this continues to be the case this year. The Government have announced an extra £899 million for general practice in 2025-26 and have set out the proposed areas of reform which will help to deliver on our manifesto commitments. This is the largest uplift in GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework and reverses the recent declining trend in funding. As a result, a rising share of total NHS resources will now go to general practice. The Department of Health and Social Care is consulting with the General Practitioners Committee in England of the British Medical Association on the 2025-26 GP contract and will consider a range of proposed policy changes. These will be announced in the usual way following the close of the consultation later this year. The Department of Health and Social Care has also entered into consultation with Community Pharmacy England regarding the 2024-25 and 2025-26 community pharmacy contractual framework, and the final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way following this consultation. The NHS in England invests around £3 billion in dentistry every year. NHS pharmaceutical, ophthalmic and dental allocations for integrated care systems 2025-26 were published alongside NHS planned guidance. The noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Leigh, spoke about hospices. The Government recognise the vital role that hospices play in supporting people at the end of life and their families, and we recognise the range of cost pressures that the hospices sector has been facing over a number of years. As the noble Lords mentioned, we are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million increase for adult and children’s hospices to ensure they have the best physical environment for care. We have also allocated an additional £26 million in revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. The £100 million investment will go towards helping hospices improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, to ensure that patients continue to receive the best care possible. Regarding social care, the Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care. This funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector. To answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. As a result of this Bill, from April 2025 the threshold of £100,000 or less will be removed.

17:30:00

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the question of impact assessments. As we discussed at length in Grand Committee, HMRC has published a tax information and impact note, and the OBR has set out the macroeconomic impacts of the Bill. Ultimately, though—I say this, in part, in response to the point by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about adding additional sectors—the Bill is necessary to fund public services, and the proposals contained in these amendments would, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, put much of that funding at risk. They would require either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In light of this, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell; I disagree with him, but he raised an important point. It is entirely wrong to characterise the amendments as “blunderbuss” and “scattergun”. We are dealing with a very crude fiscal measure that will impact all sorts of sectors in different ways. The amendments, on the contrary, are not; they are very targeted and precise, and they are different attempts to mitigate the overall problem. My amendments are confined solely to health and social care. One of the issues I am driving at in them is that, for all the announcements of increases in funding, particularly those for the NHS that the Minister just laid out for us, the question of productivity and sustainability of public services is very important. A key aspect of this is driving down demand on the NHS. The work done by many of these organisations, if it is correctly funded and targeted, will lead in future to a lower demand for elective surgery in the NHS. We are not a “blunderbuss” at all; we are trying to be very precise about what we are doing. Secondly, perhaps it is not particularly obvious but a number of noble Lords might understand this: thousands of people in this country continue to be able to work because their family members are looked after by these organisations. This is a question not just about the cost of public services; it is about the indirect costs to the economy of taking people out of other productive jobs in order to sustain their family members. Finally, many of the services that I and other people are trying to maintain are comparatively inexpensive. A lot of them rely on volunteers, and they are much less expensive than acute public services. For all those reasons, this is important. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad: I do not think we have had an adequate impact assessment of the Bill. If we had, perhaps we would have been able to take on more of what the Minister was indicating. I think he does not get that these are not wrecking amendments. They are about trying to improve the nation’s health, well-being and finances as a whole. In view of all that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

1|17:34|305|175|Division on Amendment 1|Amendment 1 agreed.||0|0

17:47:00

Amendment 2

Moved by

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert— “(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A2) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert— “(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the part-time worker secondary percentage;”.(A3) After section 9A insert—“9AA Part-time worker secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a part-time worker.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab), the part-time worker secondary percentage is 7.5%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “part-time worker” has the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.”(A4) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A5) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the part- time worker secondary percentage;”(A6) After section 9A insert—“9AA Part-time worker secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a part-time worker.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab) above, the part-time worker secondary percentage is 7.5%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “part-time worker” has the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2000.””Member's explanatory statement This amendment sets a new National Insurance Contributions rate for part-time workers.

My Lords, I start by thanking everybody who voted for the previous amendment. Such a powerful message is engaged with that statement. I am here to move Amendment 2, which is different in character from Amendment 1. The amendments in this group are primarily mine. There are a couple there from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which I also support and know that he will present very effectively. The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, in essence, deal with part-time workers. While looking at the impact of the changes to employer NICs, we became conscious of the changed position of part-time workers as members of our workforce. There are now more than 8.4 million people engaged in part-time work, who are exceptionally hard hit by the changes proposed by the Government in the NICs Bill. People who typically worked 14 hours a week incurred employer NICs in the past; that now drops to individuals who work typically only eight hours a week. Suddenly, there is a huge group of part-time workers who have become far less attractive to the employers that have provided their opportunities in the past. The impact is especially great on the hospitality industry—an industry that we know is already on its knees. Some 37% of employees in hospitality are part time, and I think there is a view in the Treasury—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, expressed it unwittingly in Committee—that part-time work is a sort of rich person’s luxury; it is people working for pin money. That, frankly, is a completely outdated attitude. Today, part time is concentrated in the lowest pay bands. It is an entry point to work for many people in disadvantaged communities or with difficult histories. It is an economic lifeline for carers who can work part time but not full time, for students, for many with disabilities and for those who are economically inactive. We have a Government who say they want to take 2 million people off benefits and get them into work: part-time work is the entry point and the obvious first step. We also want employers to see part-time work as exceedingly attractive, so that they start to add additional support, such as training and career opportunity, to part-time work because of this far more fundamental role that it can play. Instead, we have seen with this Bill that many employers are now openly saying that they intend to outsource abroad rather than employ part-time workers or that they will require part-time workers to become self-employed, with all the complexities of IR35. As we looked at our concerns for hospitality and the high streets—many in those sectors are the backbones of communities—and because we looked at the nature of the part-time workforce, we made the call to go further in this amendment than in our others and seek not just to exempt part-time workers from the increase in employers’ NICs but to reduce the rate of employers’ NICs to 7.5%. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said in the debate on the previous set of amendments, we had it in our manifesto and have since identified other tax opportunities that are available for fundraising. None of them is easy but, frankly, we would close loopholes in capital gains tax, we have talked about taxes on share buybacks and we would reinstate the surcharge on the major banks. In the previous set of discussions we had a whole series of proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, who of all people is very aware of the range of possible choices. They may not be ideal, but they are certainly much better than the choice of employers’ NICs, with the impact that is happening. In this case we made that decision, and that is the characteristic of this amendment. The other amendments in the group in my name are all consequential. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, also has amendments in this group, and I am fully supportive of them. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to speak to my manuscript Amendment 15A and its consequential Amendments 17 and 24, both of which are supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I am very grateful for their support. I will also speak to consequential Amendments 30A, 31A and 32A in my name. For clarity’s sake, I will not be pressing Amendments 30, 31 or 32. In short, these exemption amendments seek to protect all small businesses and organisations that employ fewer than 25 staff, including charities, from Clause 2’s steep and sudden drop in the NICs threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 per annum—or, on a monthly basis, from £758 to £417 and, for those who are paid weekly, from £175 to £96 per week. By maintaining these existing thresholds, these amendments would particularly protect part-time workers and smaller organisations including charities, hospitality and retail, which in some cases face increases in their NICs bill per employee as high as 50% to 70%. For this reason, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, with her Amendment 2. I should quickly declare my interests as set out in the register, specifically as an adviser and investor to a range of small businesses in the UK, including a community-owned public house. I will come on to the impact of these amendments shortly, particularly in relation to the challenging and interesting comments from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I certainly do not agree that my amendments are designed to reduce government revenue, and I will come on to that in a moment. Surely, this is our role. This is the most important economic policy that this Government have yet to produce. We are where we are, and surely we should be scrutinising, particularly if we feel that poor decisions or poor structuring of these national insurance increases are doing damage to the economy. On that theme, I will quickly share this: the latest survey from the Federation of Small Businesses reported that the proportion of its members facing contraction in the last quarter, Q4, jumped to 24%, its highest-ever level outside the pandemic. That is up from 14% in Q3. The FSB has also reported that confidence among its membership has fallen to its lowest point in 10 years. Meanwhile, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has reported that over a third of the 2,000 firms that it interviewed plan to reduce their headcount in 2025 through redundancies or recruiting fewer workers. Rather than taking a sectoral approach, for which many others have spoken passionately already, my exemption amendment applies to all small businesses and organisations, including charities with fewer than 25 staff, which, as the Bill stands, face sudden and steep drops—in fact, 45% drops—in their per-employee threshold at which employers become liable to pay NICs. Just to illustrate this, employee NICs on a salary of £30,000 are set to increase by 30%, from £2,884 to £3,750, for those employing more than three staff. For part-time workers earning, say, £15,000, the employer NICs can increase by more than 50% per job. These are not trivial increases. While I salute the Government for increasing the employment allowance in Clause 3, it is from £5,000 to £10,500, and this typically washes out increases only for micro-businesses, those employing fewer than three staff. All told, the larger the business in terms of employees and the higher the salaries paid, the lower the increase in percentage terms to its NICs. Of course, I understand why the Government are raising tax revenues—I have no issue with that—but, by placing this burden so disproportionately on small employers, the Bill threatens to do significant damage to jobs, pay and economic growth. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is already happening. My amendments would help to protect the jobs of some 6 million workers employed by about 1 million businesses and organisations across the UK. Many of these are nascent companies that operate on low margins and are at critical stages of their development—yet they grow at the fastest rate, create jobs at the fastest rate and, through their size and agility, can be great innovators. They are a vital component of GDP and our growth, with annual turnover of some £900 billion. But this group also includes a huge swathe of family and local businesses spread across the country, struggling to keep their heads above water in what have been five very difficult trading years. A fall of just 2% to 3% in employment levels or hours worked in this small business sector could cost the Treasury more in lost tax revenues and increased benefit payments than it would gain from this measure. Incentivising employment by restoring the NICs threshold would be accretive to GDP growth, the Government’s number one priority. It would help boost income tax revenues and employees’ NICs, and it would bolster VAT revenues and corporation tax. Above all, it would lift business sentiment and stimulate investment. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, describing all these amendments as wrecking amendments. Because we do not have a proper detailed impact assessment, that is an unfair charge and I challenge it on behalf of these amendments. I look forward to hearing from the Minister but, with respect, I expect to press these amendments when the time comes.

18:00:00

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 36, to which I have added my name. On Amendment 2, I do not need to add much to what has been said, other than that the disproportionate hit on part-time workers seems to me to be extraordinarily damaging. As has been said, very often these are incipient businesses that might grow to be full-time businesses. There are whole swathes of the economy, such as students, which nearly all of us have in our family, who depend on this kind of work to get them through their studies. So it is a significant impact, as has been said. The hospitality industry has not just had five difficult years. I have personal knowledge of a number of hospitality businesses that did not survive Covid, and many that survived Covid but with a massive debt overhang that they are still trying to pay off. Add this particular measure on top of that and those that just managed to survive will now probably fail, and those that can hang in there will struggle to get themselves back into viability. I have an amendment I shall speak to later about the impact of these taxes on the public sector in Scotland. In the private sector, there is a difference in hospitality business rates between Scotland and England. Although the way the business rates are determined is not exactly comparable, UKHospitality Scotland has done an analysis of businesses in Scotland in a comparable sector. It gives an example: a local pub, an average kind of pub, would pay £6,000 more in business rates, 66% more than an equivalent business in England. A town centre restaurant would pay almost £10,000 more, which is also 66% more, and a hotel would pay £26,000 more, which is 70% more than an equivalent business. I am not here to apologise for or justify the measures of the Scottish Government, who obviously have not followed the UK Government in terms of business rate discounts—it would have been helpful if they had—but I challenge the Government to recognise that the combined activities of two Governments on businesses in Scotland is leaving many businesses in Scotland comparable to similar businesses all over the rest of the UK substantially disadvantaged compared with the rest. I do not believe the Government gave any consideration to that unintended consequence and they have not recognised that it means that the Scottish economy will be disproportionately hard hit by this. I will throw one political grenade into the mix. It is fine to say that we have an SNP Government, but the majority of people in Scotland did not vote SNP and I think they are entitled to look to a UK Government to at least give some recognition that they are looking for an approach to their businesses that shows some appreciation and understanding that things are different north of the border. Just occasionally, it would be helpful if the UK Government acknowledged that.

My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before but I add, very briefly, my support to the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. I have spent a lifetime in the city helping businesses grow—funding them, looking after them and developing them. They are vulnerable throughout, but they are particularly vulnerable in their early stages, which is the point of the noble Lord’s amendment. With 25 people or fewer, it is easy to forget just how difficult it is, and how persistent an effort is needed, to get a business going, keep it going and to eventually grow it, hopefully, to a great size where it will employ people and increase the prosperity of the country. It is our feedstock—this is where I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who served with me on a City regulatory body many years ago—and if you cut down the trees in any one year, those trees will never reappear. We shall have a smaller number of growing companies from the years when this proposal has its impact. It is also surprising, when I hear debates in your Lordships’ House, how many Members cannot conceive of circumstances when the pay cheque will not turn up at the end of the month. A lifetime in public service insures you against that. But, if you run a business, you have to think every day about will happen at the end of the month. Will there be a call from the bank manager saying, “I’m very sorry, I’m not going to be able to meet your payroll”? When you have responsibility for other people, that ghastly pressure is increased by the sorts of measures the Government propose to take here. I say to the Minister, very gently, that the phrase is: revenue is vanity, profit is stability, but cash is reality. In this Bill the Government are proposing to undermine the reality of the cash that is desperately needed by the very smallest among our companies.

My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, are a classic example of how to distort a market. She wishes not only to exempt part-time employees from the measures in the Bill but to reduce the national insurance charge on part-time employees. She does not appear to have reflected on what would be the impact on full-time employees. How many full-time employees will, as a result of this measure, lose their jobs and be replaced by two or three part-time employees? How many companies will reach a cliff edge with respect to their employment policies that will ensure they develop only part-time employees, who often have fewer opportunities, and certainly fewer opportunities for promotion, than full-time employees? What has the noble Baroness got against full-time employment? We need an answer to that. Why is she so content to distort the labour market in this way? With respect to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I have greater sympathy with what he says, but he too is creating a cliff edge. The cliff edge is at 25 employees and it will considerably distort the operations of the market at that stage. It will discourage companies from growing above 25 employees. It will encourage the break-up of structures, so that units employ only 25 employees. Most interestingly, the noble Lord asked for an impact assessment of the overall impact on employment of the measures in the Bill. There have been at least three—one by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, another by the OBR and another by the Treasury. They all demonstrate that, taking the measures in the Budget as a whole, employment in the next year will increase, not diminish. The error which, I am afraid, the noble Lord made in his argument is that, yes indeed, because of higher employment costs, there may be a reduction in employment per unit output, but, because of the stimulation of aggregate demand in the Budget, there will be more units of output. So, not only will these measures encourage the growth of labour productivity by reducing the input of labour per unit output but the expenditure of these measures, through a technical device called a balanced budget multiplier, will increase the level of employment in the coming year. The impact assessment is there for all to see.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is a distinguished economist and I defer to his expertise, but I have to challenge him on the assertion that the measures in this Bill which raise national insurance are job creating. The Budget as a whole does not spend only the money raised through this tax; it spends another £40 billion a year, I believe—a total of £70 billion extra over each year of the course of the Parliament. Now, you have to assume that any measure that increases public spending by £70 billion a year will increase employment. It would be a strange measure that increased public expenditure without increasing employment. The difficulty is that all that employment increase will be in the public sector. The fact that this Government have to understand is that you have to earn wealth before you spend it and that compressing the wealth-creating part of the economy in order to spend on the public sector leads to financial disaster in the long run. So I do think his argument on that point needs to be challenged.

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, to protect small businesses with fewer than 25 employees from the increase in national insurance. Before I begin, I should declare my chairmanship of a small fintech company, as declared in the register. I am particularly concerned about the impact of the national insurance rise on SMEs because they are the main vehicle for job creation. A 2022 report by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation looked at the United States and found that, in 2019, companies in their first year created, on average, five jobs each, while companies older than that created, on average, just one new job every two years. A similar pattern can be found in the UK. Analysis by Santander of ONS data in 2018 showed that employment growth in SMEs was three times faster than in larger businesses in percentage terms. The Government’s ambition in their Get Britain Working White Paper to increase the employment rate to 80% is laudable, and I very much support this objective as the president of the Jobs Foundation, again as declared in the register, but achieving this objective requires moving 2 million people from welfare into work. There are currently around 800,000 job vacancies in the economy, according to the ONS, so we need to create an additional 1.2 million jobs to achieve this target, and that will be very difficult with the employer NI rises. SMEs employ 16.6 million people in the economy, and small businesses, those which have between zero and 49 employees, provide 13 million jobs in the economy. We should seize the national mission to get the employment rate back to pre-Covid levels. This target cannot be achieved if SMEs are not thriving. Therefore, I very much support the amendments to exempt smaller businesses from the increase in NI to enable them to fulfil their role as the biggest engine of job creation and, even more importantly, the biggest mechanism for poverty alleviation here in the UK.

My Lords, this has been a good debate and I rise to speak briefly. I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for Amendment 2, and I commend the noble Baroness for championing part-time workers, as she has done during the passage of this Bill, much as my noble friend Lord Altrincham has been championing youth employment, which is also so important. She is right to raise the impact that the policy will have on jobs. We know that part-time workers are likely to be more at risk of losing their jobs or missing out on future opportunities as a result of this Bill, particularly as a result of the drop in the threshold, which is one of the proposals. I also support the noble Baroness’s call for more information on the Government’s assessment of the impact of the Bill. I have tabled a review clause, which is in a later group, that goes wider than Amendment 36 and seeks to correct the Government’s failure to produce a proper impact assessment. I should add that I have tabled Amendment 34—it has been put into this group—to increase the employment allowance available to farmers. Our farmers are hurting. “Starmer Farmer Harmer” signs are now a common sight on the country lanes of England, although I doubt many Ministers have seen them, but we will not press that amendment to a Division. We tabled that amendment to call on the Government, once again, to support our farmers and reverse the family farm tax, which is undermining, unfortunately, the long-term viability of British farming.

18:15:00

I now turn to Amendment 17, from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which I wholeheartedly support and have put my name to. As noble Lords know, small business is close to my heart because it is at the entrepreneurial heart of the economy, as my noble friend Lord Elliott explained. The Federation of Small Businesses feedback mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was particularly concerning. I was also pleased to hear from my noble friend Lord Hodgson, from his practical business perspective that we have benefited so much from over the years, about the desperate need for cash in some of these smaller enterprises. That certainly echoes my own experience.

The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, has been indefatigable during the progress of this Bill and, for all the reasons he has given, I believe we should all support his amendment. The British Business Bank tells us there are 5.5 million small businesses in the UK. They employ 16 million people and—I hope the Minister will take this point well—they contribute massively to economic growth, which we know is the number one priority. That is something I think there is a wide measure of agreement on. So why will the Minister not roll up his sleeves and work with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, to protect smaller SMEs from the impact of this Bill? I believe that more can be done to fix this. We feel very strongly that the Government should consider further steps to support SMEs beyond the welcome, but very modest, employment allowance, and that is why we will support the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will address first the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, which seeks to set a reduced rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers at 7.5%. As I have said before, the difficult decisions contained in this Bill were necessary both to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. This amendment would reduce the revenue raised from this Bill, and therefore would reduce the Government’s ability to achieve these objectives. Reducing the rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers only would also create additional complexity in the tax system and, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, create distortions in the labour market. The Government have taken action to support those on lower pay by increasing the national living wage. Employers will also continue to benefit from employer national insurance reliefs, including for hiring under-21s and under-25 apprentices, where eligible. I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, which together seek to maintain the current rates and thresholds for businesses employing fewer than 25 staff. These amendments would also have cost implications, again necessitating higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I stress that the Government are taking action as part of this 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. More than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package, and employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance. The Government have also taken steps to strengthen small businesses’ ability to invest and grow. 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. The new clause tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, would require the Government to produce an impact assessment on the effect of the Bill on SMEs, hospitality, tourism and seasonal workers. The Government of course consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As we discussed at length in Committee, an assessment of the policy has already been published by HMRC in a tax information and impact note. The OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with the approach taken for other similar changes, and the Government do not intend to publish additional assessments. Finally, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that seeks to increase the employment allowance for farms. This amendment would again reduce the revenue raised from the Bill, necessitating either higher borrowing, lower public spending or new revenue-raising measures. The Government of course recognise and greatly appreciate the vitally important role of the farming sector. Despite the Government’s challenging fiscal inheritance, the farming and countryside programme budget has been protected at £5 billion across the next two years. This includes the largest ever proportion of the budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history. This will accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector, supporting investment in farm businesses and boosting Britain’s food security. Ultimately, this Bill is necessary to fix the public finances and to fund the public services. Many of the amendments in this group would reduce the Government’s ability to do these things, so I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

My Lords, I will be extremely quick. This has been a short but very useful debate. On the impact assessment, I think I acknowledged that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has tabled Amendment 38, which covers the scope more effectively than the amendment we have tabled. That is one which I hope we will have an opportunity to support later on today. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that there is already a cliff edge—the Minister has set it at three employees. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, moves this to a far more sensible 25 employees. That is a significant improvement that I hope the House will accept, and that we will certainly be supporting. Returning to our Amendment 2 that deals with part-time workers, this is an issue which we are going to continue to pursue; we have begun to realise how significant the change is in the structure of the workforce. If the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, were to look at that, I think he would be very surprised and begin to think rather differently over the kind of measures we are looking at here. Providing this additional support for part-time work is very much pro-growth. It ought to appeal to the Prime Minister; he has positioned himself as the pub champion. Of all the sectors that need the support of part-time workers, and that are going to be impacted by the way this increase in employer’s NICs has been drafted, it is going to be the pubs sector—it is already seeing six pubs close per week. I hope we can look to the Prime Minister for a champion who can try and provide us with some support around this issue. Because of the importance of the sectors and the changing nature of the workforce, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

2|18:23|97|169|Division on Amendment 2|Amendment 2 disagreed.||0|0

18:33:00

Amendment 3

Moved by

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert— “(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means—(a) a provider of education or childcare to children under five years of age—(i) registered in England in the early years register maintained by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills,(ii) registered in Wales with Care Inspectorate Wales, or(iii) registered in Scotland with the Scottish Care Inspectorate;(b) a university;(c) a provider of further or higher education;(d) a registered charity;(e) a housing association;(f) a small or micro business, as defined by section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015; (g) a town council;(h) a parish council;(i) a business in the hospitality sector.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement This amendment provides that certain specified employers would continue to pay contributions at the current rates. The specified employers include early years settings, universities, charities, and small businesses.

My Lords, this amendment, in the names of my noble friend Lady Kramer and myself, adds to the list of exemptions from the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions. I thought I would make that clear at the outset, although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is temporarily not in his place. The arguments in favour of the nine proposed exemptions in this amendment were discussed in some detail in Committee. What the nine exemptions have in common is that they protect services that are vital to community life and are likely to suffer grave damage if the higher employer NIC is introduced. These services include early years education, charities, housing associations and town and parish councils. Each of these organisations makes a vital contribution to our communal life, and they also have in common the fact that most have no—or no significant—money. The proposed ENIC increase will inevitably reduce the critical services they provide, in many cases to the most disadvantaged in our communities. The list of exemptions in our amendment also includes further and higher education, and I declare an interest as a member of council at UCL. Both our FE and HE institutions are in grave financial difficulties. This has been true for many years for our somewhat neglected FE sector and is now also obviously true for our higher education sector. The country’s future prosperity and its prospects for growth depend very largely upon these sectors being properly and sustainably funded. If we want a skilled and upskilled workforce, then FE colleges have a vital and irreplaceable role to play, but to play that role they need adequate funding. I did ask, in Committee, about the funding arrangements for the FE sector. The Minister replied last week. He noted, by way of preamble, that the Government would “provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions”. He does not say what “support” means. He does say that the Autumn Budget provided an additional £300 million in revenue for funding for FEs for the financial year 2025-26 “to ensure young people are developing the skills this country needs”. He does not say to what extent this will mitigate the imposition of the higher employer national insurance contribution. Could I therefore ask him again to tell us, when he replies: what percentage of the increase in the employer national insurance contribution will be mitigated by the allocation of funds from this £300 million, both in the short term from April to July this year and in the academic year 2025-26? The Minister’s reply to my Committee stage question also includes a mention of the rise of £285 per annum in student fees chargeable by HEIs from the academic year 2025-26. This will not be enough to sustain our higher education sector. As I mentioned in Committee, our universities are already showing signs of deep financial distress. I noted then that nearly three quarters of institutions are expected to run deficits in the next academic year, and 40% have less than a month’s liquidity. I also noted that three Russell group research-intensive universities—Cardiff, Durham and Newcastle—had joined the long list of universities cutting jobs and costs. Now, Edinburgh has joined them in also announcing cuts, and I hear that at least one eminent university is close to breaching its banking covenants, with all the usual consequences. It is no surprise that it is estimated that 10,000 jobs will go this year. This is a genuine crisis and it is made worse by the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions. This new ENIC levy completely wipes out and more any net increase arising from the increase in student fees. The UK has four of the world’s top 10 universities and 16 of the world’s top 100 universities. We absolutely need to have our universities prosper and to be sustainably funded if we are to continue to be a world-class centre for education and research and to contribute to the growth that we so obviously need. Our amendment would, at least, prevent the already perilous situation from getting worse while the Government devise a new and sustainable funding arrangement. Our amendment also excludes any SMEs and the hospitality sector from the rise in ENICs. SMEs are the wellspring of our economy and of its future. Some 60% of all jobs are provided by SMEs and these companies, almost by definition, are those that will have most difficulty absorbing the proposed rise in the ENIC rates. Significant job losses are inevitable. This matters not only because any job lost is regrettable but because SMEs are the engines of growth, renewal and innovation in our economy, and they create the jobs. Large corporations may be easier for government and Whitehall to deal with, but they are, and have been for a long time, net destroyers of jobs. Many of the jobs created by SMEs will, of course, be in the hospitality sector, which this amendment also excludes from the proposed rise in contributions. Many of those jobs in the hospitality sector—currently around 350,000—are held by people under 25. For many, this will be their first job and the first step on a career ladder. To keep all these young people in employment after the proposed ENIC rise would nearly double the employers’ costs from £82 million to £153 million. We should protect these young entry-level employees from job losses by exempting their employers from the proposed NIC rise. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 8 in my name and Amendment 41 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. This is the first time I have taken part on Report but I sat and listened carefully to the entire debate on the first group, which covered a lot of the issues that relate particularly to Amendment 8. Amendment 8 has a very simple and clear purpose, even though the technicalities are quite technical. It aims to delay for one year the introduction of the raised level of national insurance for all registered charities. Other amendments in this group deal with smaller charities and others with groups of organisations, many of which may be charities, but this is an exemption for one year for all charities. I want to take on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I am not quite sure which amendments he was counting in his 38, but I strongly assert that neither Amendment 8 nor Amendment 41 could in any way be described as a wrecking amendment, because they do not affect the Government’s long-term economic policy or plans. They mean that for one year the Government would not receive, in their own estimate, £1.4 billion. I tabled the same amendment in Committee and did not get an answer from the Minister to my question; I would be interested to hear any response tonight. It was on a point raised in the first group of amendments. If charities go under or are forced to slash their services, how much are the Government going to have to fund through other means—through social care, government provision or whatever mechanisms? I do not have the capacity to put a figure on that, but it seems likely that there may not be very much difference between those two figures. I tabled this in Committee because of the CEO of a fairly large charity with whom I happened to be having dinner. We were not having a deeply political, detailed discussion. She simply said to me, “If I just had one year to sort this out, I would have half a chance”. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who is not currently in his place, said in the debate on the first group that so many organisations— I think he was specifically referring to charities—were encountering this unexpected expense. It is the suddenness and the lack of a chance to think, “Can we shift some money into fundraising to increase the funding stream so that we can cope with this down the track?”. That is what this amendment seeks to do. I find myself in quite an unusual position as a Green, saying that I have put forward this really moderate, reasonable amendment that is quite small in scale compared with some of the other things we are discussing here. But it is a really practical step to attempt to protect charities and all the essential services. We heard so much passion from people who are directly involved in delivering these services from charities. I am not going to repeat that long list now, but I will just raise one point—I do not think it has been raised up to now—on the place of charity shops on our high streets. They are already struggling. We are already seeing significant closures of charity shops, faced with rising energy costs and—no one is complaining—rising staff costs due to the increase in the minimum wage. If we further hollow out our high streets by losing those charity shops, that too will have all sorts of costs that in one way or another the Government are going to have to pick up. So that is Amendment 8. I gave notice that I was going to see how this evening went. I am currently feeling inclined to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House on it.

18:45:00

Amendment 41 is slightly different because it addresses issues that I know a number of noble Lords will pick up with stronger, more radical amendments. It is about transport for children with special educational needs. As I said, Amendment 41 is also backed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and it has a pedigree. It was put forward in Committee by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

The right reverend Prelate first raised concerns at Second Reading about the impact of the Bill on the ability of children with special educational needs or disabilities to get to school. The noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Forsyth and Lord Frost, also expressed concern about this issue. I also have to mention the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who is not currently in his place, who also expressed strong concern.

I have revised the right reverend Prelate’s amendment to reflect the passage of time and the fact that the Bill is now likely to reach the statute book less than a month before the provisions take effect. Consequently, this proposed new clause would impose a duty on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to conduct, within one week of the measure receiving Royal Assent, a review of the Bill’s impact on the ability of local authorities to meet their statutory duties in respect of supplying school transport services, either directly or through private providers, for children with special educational needs and disabilities in the tax year 2025-26. The duties to review regarding 2026-27 and 2027-28, while still urgent, allow a month for these reviews so that they can feed into Treasury thinking well ahead of the well-advertised conclusion of phase 2 of the spending review in early June.

I have a great deal of detail here, but I will cut it short given the time and the desire of your Lordships’ House. I suspect that many of these issues may be mentioned later. I am going to really stress what this amendment is about. Let us remember who the real victims are here. We are here in your Lordships’ House but we are talking about children, out there in communities up and down the land, who risk losing known, reliable, trusted services. Many of these services will have been caring for these children, looking after them and taking them to school for many years.

I had a meeting and a long discussion about this with the SEND transport operators group of the Licensed Private Hire Car Association. I heard a couple of tales of what these services do. A driver and a carer transported a child who was non-verbal, and off their own bat they decided to learn sign language so that they could communicate with the child. They were not funded for this; it was just something they did. Imagine that child having those people wrenched away from them because the service cannot be afforded any more. The other story was about a girl who was really stressed because, through no fault of anyone, she was going to be 15 minutes late for school. She was really stressed about getting into school at that point, so the carer said, “It’s okay—you’re not going in on your own; I’ll come in with you”. Again, it was not in the contract but was people going that extra mile.

All those services will be thrown into turmoil because they cannot suddenly renegotiate the contracts. They are going to have to hand the contracts back, and that is really not acceptable. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville- Rolfe, has a stronger amendment than this later, and I hope we might put that to the vote. We really have to do something about SEND transport.

My Lords, I support Amendment 3, moved by my noble friend Lady Kramer and supported by my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and other amendments in this group, but I will not mention them so that we can speed through as quickly as possible and get to the vote. We discussed in some detail in Committee the plight of charities, with a view to moving an amendment of this nature at this point. I have a plea around the simplification of the tax system. I think everyone would acknowledge that national insurance contributions will never be part of asking, “Would we start from here?”, and then simplifying the tax system. Perhaps there is culpability on these Benches: they were introduced by Lloyd George, but massively expanded by Clement Attlee, so I am looking at the Benches opposite to share a bit of the responsibility from some time ago. Failure to retain charities at the current rate will cost the sector £1.4 billion in the next financial year according to the NCVO. This compounds levels of underfunding in the long term and threatens services for some of the most vulnerable in society. To take just one example, Homeless Link is a charity with 800 member organisations, all of which work on the front line of homelessness. It estimates that the national insurance changes alone could take between £50 million and £60 million out of the homelessness sector. That is peanuts when it comes to revenue raising but absolutely fundamental to services run by 800 different organisations. Most charities do not function as profit-making businesses and cannot adapt to increased costs, as the private sector can, by putting up prices or recovering elsewhere. Instead, the increase in national insurance must be accounted for by cutting costs in staff, and therefore services to people in acute need, such as those who need a bed for the night. The Government’s very welcome objective to develop a cross-departmental homelessness strategy is undermined by this additional cost. At Second Reading, the Minister defended the current UK tax regime for the charity sector, arguing that it is “among the most generous of anywhere in the world”.—[Official Report, 6/1/25; col. 601.] I ask the Minister to study with care the latest results of the Charities Aid Foundation’s World Giving Index, which has the UK now at number 22—its joint lowest position ever, having fallen out of the top 20 at the end of last year after a recent period of decline. The charitable sector is a significant partner in many of this Government’s future plans. This change in national insurance directly harms charities and the people who they need to serve. We urge the Government to reconsider this additional financial burden.

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 40, which is in my name. It asks for an impact assessment of this Bill on Scotland, because of the differences that have been identified. The Government have said that they will compensate the public sector, but we are all waiting for the detail of how they will do it. A figure of £4.7 billion as the global sum has been mentioned, but not the detail. There is a concern that the structure of the public sector in Scotland is significantly different from that in England and that it may not be sufficient to sustain public services at even the current level in Scotland, where they ae struggling, as they are everywhere else. My own health board, Grampian, has had to absorb a £20 million charge just for this Bill, on top of a £75 million deficit that it is currently running. It is in a substantial crisis. I have questions for the Minister. He will have seen the Fraser of Allander review of the impact; it may not be definitive but it is independent. It suggests that the impact is something around £550 million in Scotland. If one applied the normal rules of the Barnett formula, £4.7 billion would presumably give Scotland something between £400 million and £450 million. However, government officials in Scotland tell us that the Treasury has said the Barnett formula will transmit £300 million, or just over that. How can the Minister justify a £300 million transfer through the Barnett formula against a £4.7 billion overall budget for compensation? More to the point, how will the Government establish the criteria for what level of compensation they will give to which kind of public bodies? If they do that, can they ensure that the same conditions that apply in England will follow through in Scotland, and that the money will go with them? All I am asking for is equality of treatment, not special treatment. As I have said before, there is quite a lot wrong with what is going on in Scotland. The Scottish Government are not known for their efficiency in management; I am not trying to defend them and I do not think the UK Government should compensate them for their incompetence. However, I do not think that the public sector and the people of Scotland should suffer because of that, when an additional measure brought by the UK Government has added insult to injury or misery to misery. Will the Minister acknowledge that, if he is talking about compensation of just over £300 million, that falls a long way short of the comparable impact, pound for pound, in Scotland compared with England? What are the criteria? Will they be applied fairly and consistently across the UK?

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 9, which is in my name. I suspect that it may have been subject to pre-emption, along with Amendment 8. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is surprised, I am equally surprised that I think I agree with all of her remarks. That means that I would like to focus on Amendment 4, dealing with charity revenues of less than £1 million, which I believe is not subject to pre-emption. According to the Charity Commission website, there are about 170,000 charities in the UK, with about £100 billion of income in aggregate and 1.3 million employees. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe wants us to concentrate on those charities with an annual revenue of below £1 million. There is different terminology that can be used by the Charity Commission, because it talks about gross income. On average, charities’ donations and legacies are about one-third of their total income, as was the case with the Thames Hospice, which I described earlier. The rest of the income is grants, investments and so on. A charity with £1 million of revenue will probably raise only some £350,000 in donations. I calculate from the available information that the sums raised by charities with revenues of less than £1 million total some £12 billion, which is 12% of total charity income. But there are 162,000 charities with an income of under £1 million, which means that we are talking about 95% of all UK charities. As for their spend on national insurance, it is hard to determine, because we do not know exactly how much they spend on employment. We do know how much they spend on total expenditure, which is some £12 billion. If we assume that 50% of that—it is a very generous assumption—is on employee costs, and if we assume a salary of around £25,000, because it is a low-paid sector, then my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would impact only 240,000 people. To try to answer the criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I calculated that my noble friend’s amendment would cost the Government around £480 million—half a billion pounds. Is the Minister going to tell us that he is not prepared to protect 95% of charities for just £500 million? Does he recognise my figure? If not, what is the cost of the amendment? I invite him to join us in pausing the hike until we work out what it is, so that we can then have a meaningful discussion. I remind the Minister that in a speech to the civil society summit last year, hosted by Pro Bono Economics, Sir Keir Starmer promised to reset the relationship between civil society and government. Is this what he meant? He said that “for too long, your voice has been ignored”. I have read the full speech, and he also said, “we know it’s people on the ground, people with skin in the game, who understand the problems best and have the best answers”. He continued in his speech to civil society leaders, which largely rubbished Tory policies, by saying, “let’s be honest, for too long, your voice has been ignored between the shouts of the market and the state”. Are the Prime Minister and his Ministers listening now? Those leaders are calling for this national insurance hike to be dropped. Why would the Government want to penalise 162,000 charities, where our fellow citizens give so much of their time freely, and in many cases their cash, simply for the betterment of fellow citizens at home and abroad? It is a shameful imposition.

My Lords, on a point of clarification, I have received information that my Amendment 8 has not been pre-empted and still stands.

19:00:00

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 9, to which I have added my name, and to Amendment 4. I declare my interest as set out in the register and as a trustee of the Dartington Hall Trust. My contribution today will be short, as so much as already been said during the passage of the Bill. We have heard many passionate statements today. I have already spoken of my concern about the impact of the increases in national insurance contributions on the future of the charity sector and its ability to continue to deliver much-needed services and support. Along with many others, I believe that we have put forward compelling and passionate reasons why the charitable sector should not be subject to the Government’s national insurance contribution increases. At both previous stages of the Bill, I have respectfully asked for the impact assessment of this tax on the sector. The Minister and his Government have not, to date, reconsidered their position or produced the impact assessment, which other noble Lords have again asked for today. It seems extraordinarily unfair that the Government indirectly exempt the public sector but decline to exempt or reimburse the charity sector. I cannot understand it. At the risk of repetition, let me say that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the increased cost of this tax to the sector is £1.4 billion. It has raised its concerns to the Treasury. Together with the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and the Charity Finance Group, they perfectly summed up this situation when they wrote that “the knock-on impact it will have on individuals, communities and local economies who rely on us will be devastating”. Those are voices from the sector, who represent so many charities across the country. I am sure that the Minister has heard many calls for help himself from across the charity sector. I hope that he recognises that this tax will have a long-lasting impact on the sector’s ability to deliver many of the vital services on which government and so many others rely. Let me put to your Lordships this: if a charity approached you for support for a good cause, I have little doubt that you would be generous to the extent that you could afford; if the same charity asked you for a donation not to do good works but so that it could pay the increased taxes to the Government, I suspect that you and I would not feel inclined to put our hand in our pockets. The charity sector should not be a cash cow for the Government. Sadly, unless the Government reconsider this tax on our charities, they will greatly diminish, and the majority will need, at best, to shrink the number of people they employ and the services they provide. In the worst scenarios, charities will close. We have already heard from charities, including from my noble friend Lady Fraser, of staff reductions, redundancies and potential closures. Fundraising and costs management is difficult enough for charities; the future of the sector is looking very bleak. Many of them help the most vulnerable in society, do wonderful work across many other areas—I will not list them today—and are the backbone of our civil society. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position and listen to what is said today.

My Lords, I rise to thank my colleagues. As the chief executive of a charity, I know that the sector is watching and listening to what we are doing here and urging us on to do everything we can to mitigate this disastrous policy. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, mentioned Scotland. In an earlier debate, it became apparent that the drafting of some of the amendments perhaps did not cover Scotland. Any charity in Scotland of any size has to be registered by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and I would want to be reassured that exemptions covered the entire sector. It amounts to 5% of Scotland’s workforce, and with an increasing number of redundancies and the struggle to recruit volunteers, the workforce is already under strain and potentially limited in its capacity to deliver services. The Minister spoke earlier about the Government’s increased funding to various sectors, some of which are covered by the charity sector. However, he did not outline how that might help those not in receipt of public sector funding but who are delivering services which support public sector delivery. Finally, as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, SEND transport is an issue firmly in my bag. We already know that the SEND system is under immense strain. We already know of children who cannot go to the school it has been assessed they should attend because of transport issues. This is very complex: transport is provided mostly by private providers. There is already a limited choice of schools. Many children need specialist vehicles to get from A to B. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, many firms will be forced to hand back contracts. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to these challenges.

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seeks to establish a relief for early years settings, universities, charities and small businesses. These are all important sectors; they will be hit hard by the Government’s jobs tax, so we agree with the sentiments that she expressed. However, we have concerns about the financial implication of relief for all these sectors in one amendment. We are instead promoting some modest and separate amendments, which I am afraid makes for a big group. Amendments 4, 14, 21 and 28 in my name would exempt charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the increase in employer national insurance contributions. My noble friend Lord Leigh spoke persuasively in favour of this proposal, following the pre-emption of his own amendments. My Amendment 35 proposes an increased level of employment allowance for charities. Noble Lords across the House have been contacted by many charities which are facing tough financial decisions. We have had many worrying examples throughout the stages of this Bill. My noble friends Lady Sater and Lady Fraser made the case for action strongly. My latest example was L’Arche in the UK, which brings together people with and without learning disabilities in life-sharing communities. Again, they are facing hugely steep rises in employment costs. The most vulnerable people in our society will pay the price for Ministers’ misguided Budget decisions. Amendment 5 seeks to protect children with special educational needs or disabilities. I know that the Licensed Private Hire Car Association SEND transport operators group has written to many noble Lords highlighting the issues that families who rely on these services are facing. It estimates that the associated local funding shortfall in the next tax year, 2025-26, in respect of the services it contracts out to private providers, will be £40 million. That is a relatively small number compared with the overall revenue expected from the jobs tax— £23 billion to £26 billion, depending on the year—but the impact on vulnerable children is wildly disproportionate to that revenue. Like my noble friend Lady Fraser, we feel very strongly that these vital services should be protected. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we prefer our formulation on SEND. Finally, my Amendment 33 addresses early years provision by seeking to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. In government, we took strong action to support the early years sector, while expanding the free childcare offer to all children under five in England last year. The Government are right to adopt our expansion plan in full. We are grateful for that. However, some providers are worried that they will not be able to access the employment allowance because of the public work they do. It would be good if the Minister could look at that again. We are seeing very big cost increases in early years provision, which is extremely worrying. In conclusion, the Official Opposition feel that the Government must change their approach. We are not satisfied by the Minister’s responses so far and our current intention is to divide on Amendments 4, 5 and 33.

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will first address the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. The Government recognise that early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible. That is why we committed in our manifesto to delivering the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents and to opening 3,000 new or expanded nurseries through upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. Despite the challenging fiscal circumstances the Government inherited, in the October Budget the Chancellor announced significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places. This means that total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would exempt providers of higher and further education from changes in the Bill. The Government of course recognise the great value of UK higher education in creating opportunity, as an engine for social mobility and growth in our economy and in supporting local communities. We will provide support for departments and other public sector employers for the additional employer national insurance contribution costs. This funding will be allocated to departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it is for devolved Governments to make their own decisions on how that money is allocated. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that all additional cost pressures will be considered as part of the spending review. The Autumn Budget provided an additional £300 million of revenue funding for further education for the financial year 2025-26, to ensure that young people develop the skills this country needs. This funding will be distributed specifically to support 16 to 19 student participation. Approximately £50 million of this funding will be made available to general further education colleges and sixth-form colleges for the period April to July 2025. This one-off grant will enable colleges to respond to current priorities and challenges, including workforce recruitment and retention. The remaining £250 million of funding will be made available in 16 to 19 funding rates in the academic year 2025-26, with the aim of ensuring that all 16 to 19 providers are funded on an equitable basis from 2025 to 2026. Furthermore, the Budget provided £6.1 billion of support for core research and confirmed the Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement, a major reform to student finance which will expand access to high-quality flexible education and training for adults throughout their working lives. I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Bennett and Lady Sater, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seek to exempt charities from the changes in this Bill and increase the employment allowance for them. The Government of course recognise the important role that charities play in our society and the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities. That is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500. This means that more than half of businesses, including charities, with national insurance liabilities will either gain or see no change next year. As I have noted previously, it is important to recognise that all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax regime, with tax released for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, again asked me to cost his amendment; as I said in Committee, it is not for the Government to cost amendments that do not reflect government policy. I turn to the amendments and proposed new clause tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, exempting providers of transport for special educational needs children to and from their place of education from the changes in this Bill and requiring the Government to publish an impact assessment on this topic. In the Budget and the recent provisional local government finance settlement, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26, which includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This additional funding has been determined based on a national assessment of the costs for directly employed staff across the public sector. However, this funding is not ring-fenced and it is for local authorities to determine how to use it across relevant services and responsibilities. Furthermore, the Government are providing a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26. To support social care authorities to deliver these key services, we announced in the provisional local government finance settlement a further £200 million for adult and children’s social care. This will be allocated via the social care grant, bringing the total increase of this grant in 2025-26 to £880 million. This means that up to £3.7 billion of additional funding will be provided to social care authorities in 2025-26. On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, seeking to exclude town and parish councils from the employer national insurance rate change, the Government have no direct role in funding parish and town councils and are therefore not providing further support to them for the employer national insurance changes. Finally, on the proposed new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, requiring the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on the Scottish public sector, as I have set out previously, the Government have published an assessment of this policy in a tax information and impact note. This clearly sets out that around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 national insurance liability decrease and around 940,000 will see it increase. Around 820,000 employers will see no change. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other, similar tax changes and the Government do not intend to publish additional assessments. We will of course continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way. In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I was particularly taken by Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I am glad that she will divide the House. We will support her when she does. I was less taken by the Minister’s response, and still I note the lack of a definitive answer to my question on the percentage relief to FE funding. Having listened to speeches from all parts of the House, rescuing vital and vulnerable sectors from the increase in employers’ national insurance contribution seems to me almost a duty. I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 3.

3|19:17|77|153|Division on Amendment 3|Amendment 3 disagreed.||0|0

19:28:00

Amendment 4

Moved by

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert— “(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned increase in employer National Insurance contributions.

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

4|19:29|235|149|Division on Amendment 4|Amendment 4 agreed.||0|0

19:38:00

Amendment 5

Moved by

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert— “(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a person providing transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities. (1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement Exemption for SEND transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities from the Government’s planned increase in employer National Insurance contributions.

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

5|19:39|235|152|Division on Amendment 5|Amendment 5 agreed.||0|0

19:49:00

Amendments 6 to 9 not moved.

Amendment 9A

Moved by

9A: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert— “(1A) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(1B) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(1C) After section 9(1A) insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means—(a) a person providing a care home service or domiciliary support service regulated under the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003,(b) a person providing primary medical services through contractual arrangements with a Health and Social Services Board,(c) a person providing general dental services under Part 2 of the General Dental Services (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1993,(d) a person providing pharmaceutical services under Part 2 of the Pharmaceutical Services Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997,(e) a provider of health and care registered as a charity by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, or(f) a person providing hospice care whether in a hospice or elsewhere.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””

Amendment 9A agreed.

Clause 2: Secondary threshold for secondary Class 1 contributions

Amendment 10

Moved by

10: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after “£96” insert “or, (b) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £175.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment, together with Baroness Barker’s amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 2, Clause 2, page 1, line 14, and Clause 2, page 1, line 15 exempts care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commissioned dentists, NHS commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care, and those providing hospice care from the changes to the threshold.

Amendment 10 agreed.

19:50:00

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.30 pm.