National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Motion to Approve

16:11:00

Moved by

That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee.

My Lords, the substance of this Bill was addressed during the Second Reading debate in your Lordships’ House on Monday. However, I briefly remind noble Lords that, in the Budget last year, the Government set out a plan to repair the public finances while protecting working people and restoring public services. This meant taking some very difficult decisions, some of which are contained in this Bill. I of course understand and respect the legitimate concerns that have been raised, both inside and outside your Lordships’ House, in relation to the Bill, which is why the Government are committed to ensuring thorough and detailed scrutiny of the legislation. I am aware that an amendment is before the House that the Bill should be considered in a Committee of the whole House, rather than in Grand Committee. There is clear precedent for the latter. Every national insurance contributions Bill since 2006 that has not been fast tracked has been considered in Grand Committee. The Grand Committee has proven to be entirely capable of providing the detailed scrutiny that a Bill such as this requires. Since Committee stages began being held in Grand Committee in 2002, the Grand Committee has been the normal venue for smaller or more technical Bills, including those that have made substantial changes. The precedent set over the past two decades demonstrates that Grand Committees are well equipped to handle the detailed examination required for such legislation. This Bill, while significant, follows the same technical nature, and the Government believe that there is no reason for treating it differently from its predecessors. As noble Lords know, unless there is an intention to vote in Committee stage, which would be highly unusual for a Bill of this type, there is very limited procedural difference between the Grand Committee and a Committee of the whole House. Both venues afford the same opportunities for thorough scrutiny and debate. Proceedings of the Grand Committee are fully transparent and are recorded in Hansard, just as they are in this Chamber. Members of the public and the media have access to the debates, ensuring that the process remains open and accountable. However, there are important practical considerations and time constraints for this Bill. If it were necessary to wait for a slot in a Committee of the whole House, the Government would be concerned about meeting the resource budgeting and accounting deadlines for the Bill. The Grand Committee offers a timely and efficient solution, ensuring that we can meet our obligations without unnecessary delays. I look forward to addressing in Committee all the concerns that noble Lords have raised about this Bill. The Government believe that the Grand Committee is the most appropriate forum for detailed scrutiny of this legislation, following the precedent of the past two decades, ensuring that we can proceed in a timely and efficient manner. I beg to move. Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out “Grand Committee” and to insert “Committee of the Whole House”.

My Lords, I rise to move my amendment to the Government’s Motion, that the national insurance Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, of which my noble friend Lord Altrincham gave notice in his speech on Monday evening.

16:15:00

I am amazed that it should be suggested that this Bill, which is the concern of millions of people around the country, should be given less prominence than consideration on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. It is a vital Bill because, of course, it will see almost a million organisations, public, private and charitable, paying more in national insurance contributions. It will hit hospices, social care providers, GPs, dentists, nurseries, charities and businesses indiscriminately.

We must call this Bill what it is: it is a jobs tax, and it will hit many of the small businesses that already struggle to stay open on our high streets, be that a local cafe, a corner shop, a hospitality business or even your local hairdressers. Whether I get my hair cut here in Parliament or in Altrincham, those small businesses will be hit hard by this tax. Not only does this Bill have wide-ranging impacts; the costs are debilitating for many businesses and charities. All told, this is a £23.7 billion tax on jobs. As we heard in the debate on Monday, it will hold back growth, stifle wages and leave people worse off. These are the people who were given a solemn commitment by the Government at the general election that national insurance would not go up. Promises were broken and financial burdens on working people concealed. But the British public are not stupid.

Finally, it is important to note that the last two national insurance Bills that went through this House had all their stages on the Floor of the House. Both those Conservative Bills actually cut taxes for working people. Surely, we should subject a tax increase to more scrutiny than those Bills received here on the Floor of the House. The hundreds and thousands of businesses, charities, nurseries and hospices who are hurting expect it of us. I beg to move.

My Lords, we on these Benches are focused on the substance of this important Bill, which we demonstrated with our regret amendment on Monday. Disputing where Committee stage is debated is very much a second-order issue, especially when, to make progress on the substance, we will have to try to find some common ground. During the years of the Conservative Government, significant mixed Bills of equal impact on people were debated in Grand Committee at Committee stage. We did not seek to vote against that then. I do not see the change of Government as a reason to vote against that now, and we will support from these Benches the Government this afternoon.

My Lords, forgive me for pointing out that on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the turnout in support of their regret amendment on Monday was less than half their complement. They moved a regret amendment; they made fine speeches about how damaging this Bill will be to charities, hospices and other organisations; and then they also, at the end of the debate, made it clear that they would not give the whole House an opportunity to consider this on the Floor of the House. I do not know what is going on between the Liberal Benches and the Labour Party, but what is clearly going on is some kind of deal—a deal that is against the interests of the people of this country, including many charities, hospices and other organisations. It is completely wrong to argue that in the Grand Committee this Bill can be subject to similar scrutiny. If it is on the Floor of the House, we can vote on some of the measures that we agreed with the Liberal Democrats need to be considered. We can have proper scrutiny. This is simply an attempt by the Government to hide their embarrassment at the atrocious consequences of this unprecedented national insurance Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested just now that it would not be possible to vote in Grand Committee. He is in error. I know that because I led for the Opposition on an insurance Bill about 12 years ago and there was a vote in the Committee, which the Opposition won. So it is entirely possible for the same process, the same level of scrutiny and the same seriousness to take place in Grand Committee as on the Floor of the House.

Perhaps I might comment on the remarks of the noble Lord opposite just now. I have for 25 years had the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker—I forget what the earlier term was—and I can assure him that it is quite clear that Divisions in Grand Committee are not permitted.

My Lords, I do not like to disagree with the Minister, but I cannot help thinking that describing this Bill as a technical Bill is rather far-fetched. If you compare the Bills that we have seen in Grand Committee, such as the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which was a very large and technical Bill, or indeed the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which went through last time round, you see that these are indeed very technical Bills—of a short and long nature. But this Bill is one of the tiniest Bills I have seen. It is very short. It proposes two simple measures. One is to lower the threshold at which employers will pay national insurance, the consequences of which were pointed out on Monday. The second is to raise the percentage of national insurance paid by employers on every salary, notwithstanding the raising of a certain employment allowance. I therefore cannot help but think that this is a very simple proposition for this country and a very serious one, and to describe it as a technical Bill is a slight exaggeration—perhaps the noble Lord will agree.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. This Bill is significant and should of course be subject to thorough scrutiny by your Lordships’ House. As I said, the Government believe that the Ground Committee provides the best forum for that scrutiny. It was notable in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that she sought to revisit all the arguments that were debated thoroughly during Second Reading of the Bill on Monday and did not address a single question of precedent.

Oh!

I am sorry. I apologise; I meant procedure. The noble Baroness did not address a single question of procedure. She sought to relitigate all the arguments that were made extensively at Second Reading. That shows that we are far from seeking somehow, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, to shy away from debate. Both he and I sat through six hours of debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House just on Monday, so in no way am I or the Government seeking to shy away from debate. I am very happy to debate these matters on the Floor of the House any time, as the noble Lord knows. As I said in my opening remarks, every national insurance contributions Bill since 2006—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, this one has not been fast-tracked; the two she mentioned were fast-tracked—has been considered in Grand Committee. This has been the normal venue for small or technical Bills—and, as the noble Baroness said, this is indeed a small Bill—including some that have made substantial changes. She mentioned some that made extremely substantial changes that were considered in Grand Committee. The precedent set over the past two decades demonstrates that Grand Committees are well equipped to handle the detailed examination that is required for such legislation. This Bill follows the same technical nature and the Government believe that it should be treated in the same manner as all its predecessors. We of course understand and respect the legitimate concerns that have been raised in relation to the Bill. We are committed to ensuring thorough and detailed scrutiny of the legislation which, following the precedent of the past two decades, we believe will be best achieved in Grand Committee.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to correct his noble friend and confirm that Divisions are not allowed in Grand Committee?

I am not as expert in procedure as the noble Lord. I am happy to defer to my noble friend.

I am happy to confirm that you cannot have Divisions in Grand Committee.

The noble Lord has just taken the words out of my mouth. I was just about to address the procedure, which is that you cannot have Divisions in Grand Committee. This Bill may be small and technical, but it will have a massive impact on people up and down the country. For that reason, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

1|16:26|226|228|Division on Baroness Williams’s amendment to Lord Livermore’s Motion.|Baroness Williams’s amendment to Lord Livermore’s Motion disagreed.||0|0

Lord Livermore’s Motion agreed.