National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of these amendments and to speak very briefly about hospices—which I know many noble Lords have already done. Our hospices support over 300,000 people, mostly in the community, and this tax will cost the sector hundreds of thousands of pounds. Beds will close and outreach services will be decimated. Where will people go to die? Yes, hospitals offer palliative care, but only four out of 10 hospitals have the services that are necessary seven days a week, despite this having been a national standard in 2004.

The assisted suicide Bill is being debated in the other place. Assisted dying is what hospices do: ensuring that people can die in dignity, are properly cared for and can live as fully as they are capable of right to the end of their life. We only die once. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has said previously: that not exempting hospices from this tax is shockingly cruel. But it is worse than that, because it shows a lack of compassion and an absence of humanity that are truly shocking. It leaves me speechless, and I have nothing more to say.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches do not dispute that the Government were handed a dire fiscal situation; the question is what taxes they choose to raise to remedy it? We feel that they have made the wrong choice in this instance.

With these amendments in lieu—certainly those from my noble friend Lord Scriven and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, from the Cross Benches—we have proposed that, in key areas, power is provided to the Government and to the Treasury to reverse that decision in these narrow circumstances if they discover, as they see this event play out, that the choices they made were not those that they thought they had made. It is very unusual from these Benches for us to be willing to provide what is, in effect, a Henry VIII power to the Government, and that we do so reflects our deep anxiety. This is not political game playing; we are deeply anxious about what will happen with community health, social health, small businesses and the knock-on consequences of all that.

I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it was her thought in Committee that one way to at least find some common ground would be to pass powers over to the Secretary of State. That is the pattern that we have followed. I hope that the Government will see that they are not forced to act in any way by two of these amendments in lieu; they are being given the opportunity and the possibility, and we hope they will accept them in that spirit.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has proposed an amendment in lieu which would require an impact evaluation. I have to say to the Minister that, when he spoke at the opening of this debate about how few businesses would be impacted by the increase in employer NICs, I began to think that he had not been given the central information that he should have been given. If he were to look, he would discover that that vast number of companies that are not affected are those with three employees or fewer, but that those small companies that we look to for scale-up and to drive growth are impacted.

Again, this underscores the fact that to roll it out effectively—and I fully accept that this is new and has not been the pattern of past Governments—we need to move to a time when we get much more detailed impact evaluation as we deal with these issues in this House. We on these Benches hope very much that the Government will accept the three amendments in lieu. If they do not, then we will support all three.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we have worked together on these three modest, common-sense amendments, and we will also support them if it comes to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have rejected a number of amendments which call for the exemption of various sectors from the jobs tax, citing financial privilege. The amendments would have protected small business, providers of transport for students with special educational needs, small charities, providers of early years education and hospices, which we have already heard a lot about today, because of their desperate situation, from my noble friends Lord Leigh, Lord Ashcombe, Lady Monckton and Lady Noakes.

The Government’s refusal to acknowledge the damaging impacts that this tax on jobs will have is very concerning. The tax is in complete contrast to their insistence that they are the party of growth. Indeed, the most recent GDP statistics from the ONS indicate that the economy shrank by 0.1% in January. The way the Government are now taxing the more productive private sector to pay for a huge increase in less productive public projects and salaries means, I fear, that this trend will continue.

We have recast our review clause into a modest one, which we will be voting on shortly. We will not oppose the government amendments in this second group, but I give notice that we are planning to seek assistance for those providing SEND transport in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, we regret very much that the other place rejected amendments that would have exempted key groups such as universities, nurseries and those providing SEND transport—essential services that provide key support will be under huge financial pressure. We have had to be selective. We have offered the Government opportunities to take powers in the areas where we think the greatest damage will be done most rapidly. Therefore, we will not press the Government on these amendments.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their agreement not to insist on these amendments. We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. Not acting was simply not an option. As a result, through this decision, and others taken in the Budget, we have created a foundation of stability on which we are now taking forward our agenda of growth and reform.

Finance Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town. We thoroughly enjoyed her very warm speech. She brings an expertise not only in a key industry but in skills development, and boy, do we need that.

The Finance Bill, in so many ways, feels like old news, but it is relevant and many of its features will go into effect in the next few weeks. We on these Benches approached our response to this Bill with an understanding of the difficult fiscal position Labour inherited from the Tories. Consequently, we have not objected to replacement of the non-dom regime—though we think it could have used much better and proper consultation—and we have accepted the increase in capital gains tax and the rise in the energy profits levy. We would have also closed existing loopholes in the capital gains tax regime and backdated the increase in the energy levy, as outlined in our general election manifesto.

However, we absolutely cannot support a tax on education through the introduction of VAT on independent school fees. Our concerns lie particularly with the thousands and thousands of families with SEN children who do not have an education, health and care plan and who have turned to independent schools because they cannot find available state provision. In some cases, this is because the EHCP assessment process is so long, onerous and costly, but it is also because the hurdle for an EHCP is so high that many children fail to get the early help they need to prevent them falling behind unless they switch to the private sector, and now the VAT costs will further penalise those families.

We are also worried about the impact of the increase in alcohol duty, particularly on the whisky and wine industries and the knock-on to the hospitality sector, which already faces so many stresses and new costs—not least the increase in employers’ NICs. I do not understand the Government’s resistance to at least doing an impact evaluation on this sector and all the many ways in which it has been hit post Budget. The hospitality sector and the high street could be so much helped by a proper reform of business rates; we are dismayed by the delay in that process and call for something much more drastic that would make a fundamental difference—a commercial landowner levy.

I pivot to an issue raised primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, on which I would go farther than he did. Clause 19 and Schedule 4 bring into UK law the undertaxed profits rule, pillar 2 of the OECD’s project to counter the use of artificial arrangements by large multinationals to shift profits away from the country where they should rightly be taxed to a jurisdiction where tax is low or non-existent. This is known as base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, and the biggest culprits, as we all know, are the mega US tech companies. This is a crucial piece of international law which, when implemented, would mean that the UK can charge a top-up tax where BEPS is demonstrated. This would replace the UK’s current 2% digital tax, which, as the noble Lord said, raises the pathetic amount of something like £600 million a year, according to the Treasury.

It shocked me—I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, noticed this, because it slipped by most of us—that on 17 January the PRA and the Treasury announced that they would delay beginning the implementation of this undertaxed profits rule until 2027; it had already been postponed once to 2026. This is even though the anticipated tax revenue is more than £2 billion a year; the noble Lord cited the updated figure of £2.8 billion a year. The reason the Government gave was that:

“This allows … time for greater clarity to emerge about plans for its implementation in the United States”.


Even more significantly, the PRA has paused until further notice its firm data collection exercise, which is a vital step in bringing us to a point where we could support the implementation of this rule. In effect, the PRA and the Treasury might just as well have written that they will close their eyes to tax avoidance by the US mega tech companies because they are afraid to annoy President Trump and Elon Musk. Will the Minister explain to me why—at a time when we are looking at cuts in benefits to disabled people, there is pressure on the public sector in every direction and we have to increase defence—we will make a £2.8 billion annual gift to tax avoiders when these other measures are necessary?

The UK’s economic numbers are not in a happy place, as many have noticed. GDP declined in January and the drop in construction is particularly worrying. The Government seem to be tackling the problem with answers that in some ways are too simplistic, and I do not hear them being challenged much on it. Diverting pension money into illiquid, high-risk investments may sound like an excellent strategy, but it is utterly unconvincing until we get safeguarding for small pots. Not a word has been said on that issue.

Updated public/private partnerships can work to bring in private money, particularly for infra- structure investment, but only under limited and highly controlled circumstances. I had to sit and watch from the board of TfL the last Labour Government enter into a completely insane public/private partnership for the London Underground. It was the flagship PPI arrangement, but predictably collapsed at a cost to the taxpayer and the London fare payer of many billions of pounds. At TfL I was told the loss was £11 billion; the latest reports now estimate it at closer to £20 billion. There are limited circumstances in which this engagement can be used; it has to be done with a very open-eyed and carefully crafted set of rules. I beg the Government not to be naive in the way they were a decade ago.

I accept that the international backdrop of live wars and trade wars would be a challenge to any Government, but in these circumstances we need to know who our real friends are and stand with them. On this theme, I urge the Government not to be naive in dealing with the United States. The UK steel industry is the first UK casualty to the Americans, but it will not be the last. Any trade deal on offer by Trump will be one-sided. If it is not, the Americans will simply renege when it suits them, as they have with Canada and Mexico. That should be a salutary lesson. Getting closer to Europe and into the customs union should be plan A, not plan B or C. That strategy alone would seriously strengthen our hand with the Trump Administration.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment for the reasons the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has given. It is, obviously, quite important to bring the Scottish position into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

It also gives me an opportunity to make two points that I ask the Minister to bear in mind. The first is the extent to which the public services in Scotland are dependent on the third sector. They depend to a major extent on the work done by charities and other third sector organisations. There is, of course, an imbalance between the way in which public sectors react to the changes in the Bill and the third sector is left with very little support at the moment to enable it to do that. Perhaps the Minister might bear in mind, as time goes on, that it is necessary to keep an eye on the extent to which the Bill has that deleterious effect.

There are other ways—I know the Minister understands this—in which these bodies can be assisted. It may be, if the position is as people are saying and they will be so disadvantaged, that the Government might be able to support them in some way to enable them to continue to provide their vital support. In the end, the people who suffer are not those who provide the services but those for whom the services are provided, for which the public services in Scotland are not fully equipped.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I take full responsibility for the misdrafting of the original amendment, and for not being sensitive to the legal differences between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the others who have supported him, and those in Scotland who were so concerned about what might happen to the care services there that they wanted to make sure that the language was reasonably perfected.

I am delighted to accept that amendment, but I am also very grateful that people came forward. It is good to know that we are sending something to the other place that is not holed beneath the waterline; I appreciate that. I also appreciate the vote that came in this House, which is not disrupted at all by this amendment, as people were very clear that they intended it to apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

I hope that I will be in a position to thank the Government for accepting this tidying-up amendment, understanding the spirit both in which it was offered and in which the previous debate took place.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I want to raise an objection to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which accused us of making amendments to spray public funding around. We made a number of suggestions as to how government could raise revenue in other ways, and government does flex itself, as we have seen in the increasing defence expenditure and reduction in overseas aid, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do outside of a Budget.

When the chief executive of a hospice says publicly that, as a result of this legislation, people may die in greater pain and agony than would otherwise be the case, I think it is perfectly reasonable for this to be drawn to your Lordships’ attention and for amendments to be discussed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, it was this Government’s duty in October last year to repair the public finances and rebuild the public services. We did so in the fairest way possible, by keeping our promises to working people not to increase their national insurance, VAT or income tax. The Government did, however, need to take some very difficult decisions, including some of the measures contained in this Bill. As a result of those decisions, we have now wiped the slate clean, creating a platform of stability and enabling us to make significant additional investment in the NHS.

I thank all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinise the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House. Specifically, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their constructive engagement and scrutiny.

While I acknowledge the commitment of your Lordships’ House to the scrutiny of the Bill, the Government have not found themselves in agreement with the amendments proposed. We believe that the Bill in its original form provides the right way in difficult circumstances of raising the revenue needed to repair the public finances and rebuild public services.

I thank my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Chandos for their supportive contributions and thank my officials who worked hard to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House, including Joe Oakes, Isabelle Urban, Alex Nevitte, Henry Lodge, Hannah Bewley and Will Smith. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I am sorry to disrupt the House, but it is common to use do now pass to say thank you and I certainly have thank yous to say.

I thank the House for passing a number of amendments that will substantially reduce the damage and harm being done by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, took the lead on small businesses, the Conservative Benches took the lead on charities and transport for special needs children, and my own party took the lead on community health and social care. Those are all exceedingly important and I hope the Government will take the issues very seriously. I do not think we have ever heard better debates, frankly, than those in this House that talked about real-life experience to convey the significance of the impact of the original Bill.

I thank the Minister. He and his team were unable to give us any concessions but they said no in the nicest of ways. I thank all the other Benches. We worked closely together—Cross Benches, Conservatives and our party—because we all felt in an almost non-political way that it was really necessary to try to come to the rescue of the damage that we could see was going to occur.

There is one amendment that I did not mention and which I think is important because it may survive some of this process and that is from the Conservatives on an impact assessment. That is becoming a recognised vehicle for important assessment of Bills such as this and has historically not been adequate. Perhaps we could now change that for the future.

Lastly, I thank my own Benches. I thank my noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Scriven and the others who led on various areas within this. I also thank Elizabeth Plummer of our Whips’ Office who did so much of the heavy lifting. She will have my eternal thanks. It is so good to have somebody covering one’s back when trying to deal with complex issues. I thank the House in general for taking this issue so seriously and recognising its significance to so many people.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

I too have some thanks to give. I thank all noble Lords from across the House who voted for my exemption amendment on the 45% reduction in Clause 2’s secondary threshold for all organisations employing fewer than 25 staff. I particularly thank my supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I was delighted to have the support of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, the majority of Cross-Benchers who were able to vote at that late hour.

I also thank the Public Bill Office for helping to draft an amendment that turned out to require five consequential amendments, the staff of the Whips’ Offices, and the Minister for at least listening and for his patient approach. I appreciate that he has a lot on his plate, but I hope that he and the Treasury appreciate that my amendment sits right behind their number one priority, which is to generate sustainable economic growth. That is why I tabled the amendment and I trust it will be given the full consideration and scrutiny it merits.

Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

In summary, these instruments uprate the lower earnings limit, small profits threshold, rate of class 2 and rate of class 3 by September 2024 CPI of 1.7%, and set most of the rates and thresholds for national insurance contributions which they cover at their 2024-25 levels for the 2025-26 tax year. The instruments also make provision for a Treasury grant, extend the veterans’ employer NICs relief and increase the rates of child benefit and guardian’s allowance by September 2024 CPI of 1.7%. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief, for two reasons. One is that I just do not think I could cope if this turned into yet another discussion of employers’ NICs, particularly as we have Third Reading tomorrow. As the Minister said, that is the broad context within which we discuss this. Also, when it comes to the very detailed details of various levels of NICs and thresholds, and making changes based on CPI, I lack the detailed knowledge to be able to add a whole lot to the value of the discussion.

I will make some comments on the National Insurance Fund. This is one of those days when I look around and think, “Where is Lord Davies of Brixton when you need him?”. He often talks to us about the integrity of the fund, and—although I do not want to put words into his mouth—regrets that it does not function in the role for which it was originally designed. I agree. Nominally it is a fund to pay social security benefits but, first, a portion of it—roughly 24% of the amount raised in NICs—is allocated to the NHS by formula. Secondly, if there is any surplus in the fund it can be lent to various departments under the auspices of the Treasury. Thirdly, it can be topped up by a grant from the Treasury if the amount is not sufficient for the payouts it needs to make. Indeed, that has been reinforced or extended in the context of the SI before us today.

Crucially, the level of the National Insurance Fund does not determine the amount that is spent on any form of social security, whether state pensions or other things. I agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the idea that the National Insurance Fund is financially separated from other parts of government is illusory.

I think that a review of the status of the National Insurance Fund will begin in the fiscal year that starts in April 2025. This is the quinquennial review that is required for the fund. Given that UK demographics are such that they will drive up the cost of state pensions and a whole lot of other elder needs, which will take the concept behind the fund almost to breaking point, can the Minister say whether the next review will look again at the fundamentals, accepting that in many ways this has effectively become a variation on taxation, and see whether the system can be simplified and combined? It is unfortunate that people still feel that when they pay their national insurance contribution they are funding their state pension, which is not the reality, even if it sounds like that from some of the language.

Looking at the other content of the two SIs in front of us, it struck me that, although I fully understand child benefit and guardian’s allowance going up at CPI, the number is so tiny. This was brought home to me very much this past year when, for various reasons, I have had various grandchildren living with me. Does whoever designed these benefits have a clue how much a teenage boy can eat? There is a great argument for relooking at the whole benefit system and putting it into a much more realistic context. The Government have said that they will look again at benefits, but I wonder whether they will use that lens as they do so, because it is about time.

We support the extension of the 12-month NICs holiday for veterans, but I hope that our support for veterans will not stop there. With the change in approach we are now taking to defence, recognising that our military personnel need to be supported and treated in a very positive way rolls over into also taking care of our veterans, who form so much of the homeless population, for example. That is one of the reasons why—going back to the employers’ NICs Bill that we have been dealing with, which has its Third Reading tomorrow—we focus so much on things such as part-time, entry-level work and small businesses. It is, in part, to deal with the significant number of veterans who are not finding themselves a route back into a working and functional life once they return to civic society.

We will not oppose either of these SIs. I apologise for not being able to go through the nitty-gritty of many of the dimensions, but perhaps that will at least mean that the Committee can adjourn a little earlier.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for clearly outlining the essence of these two SIs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments. We had substantial discussions about national insurance in this House last week, on the national insurance contributions Bill, during which significant amendments were made. If carried through the whole legislative process, the changes agreed would result in significant changes to declared government policy. But from those political highs, we move to today’s debate, which is at a much more technical level and, as the Minister said, does not impinge directly on the proposed changes in the Bill.

I note in passing that I read with great interest the Government Actuary’s report, the existence of which I confess I was previously unaware. It provides first-rate briefing across the whole complex of social security benefits, and I thank the Government for it. Reflecting on the references to the National Insurance Fund, already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer —and, sadly, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton—I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to put matters on a more realistic basis. The fund does not do what it says on the label.

In particular, the projections in the report indicate that the estimated 2025-26 end-year fund balance of £81.6 billion is only 53% of the estimated benefit expenditure of £152.9 billion. This is another factor in the case for reform of the welfare system, which we in the Conservative Party have called for to incentivise work, cut costs and fraud, and raise productivity. This is not least because of the significant long-term demographic changes which, as the last quinquennial review published in 2022 shows, are projected to exhaust the fund before 2085. There is a big challenge ahead.

Finally, on the measures in these two orders, the Minister will be glad to know that we are also broadly content. I welcome especially the rollover of support for Armed Forces veterans entering the civilian workforce, which we introduced in April 2021. The truth is that readjusting to civilian life is a major problem for many, and this measure is an imaginative incentive to employers to give them a chance and take advantage of their skills and experience, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks. Incidentally, the arrangement also shows that exemptions from the standard national insurance rules are possible.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think we all agree that the US is an indispensable ally in many areas. As he may have seen, President Trump has said he has had a couple of good, constructive calls with Keir Starmer and the two enjoy a good relationship. The Prime Minister has said that he would like to work with the US to develop a trade deal, and we are keen to work with the Trump Administration to capitalise on opportunities and deepen and strengthen our relationship.

With regard to the specifics around what will happen within the steel sector, there is a lot of hypothesis and noise at the moment, but there are currently no established facts about what that will look like. The Government will make any key decisions in light of those key facts as and when they emerge, and we will not be drawn into a hypothetical conversation.

With regard to a free trade agreement, we have talked about the fact that the US is such a valuable ally, and we would love to be able to deepen those trading relationships. That said, 18% of our trade today already happens with the US. Any free trade agreement set in place would need to best represent UK interests.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, being emollient has never worked with President Trump. Will the Government heed my leader Ed Davey’s calls to work with like-minded allies, including Canada and the EU, to respond to both steel tariffs and potential dumping, including plans for retaliatory tariffs on targeted American exports such as Tesla vehicles? Have Ministers convened a meeting with the leaders of our four UK nations to work together to protect our steel industry? The Canadians have called all their Premiers together. Are the Government working not just with our steel companies but with the unions to protect steel jobs? This country would never start a trade war, but it cannot weakly acquiesce in being the victim of one.

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I agree that the UK steel industry is something that we hugely value and look to support in any way that we are able. To that end, we have a steel strategy being published this spring which will outline how we intend to make the industry as sustainable as possible. A steel council is already in existence, and I can confirm that it includes representatives from the union. The Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade is in a regular and open dialogue with the industry, and we will consider all the tools in our toolkit to make sure that we are able to support the industry. I note as well that £2.5 billion of investment has been set aside to support the UK steel industry.

London Stock Exchange: Decline in UK Funds

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Stamp taxes on shares raise more than £4 billion a year in revenue. Targeted design features such as the exemption for transfers made on growth markets also support the UK’s competitiveness. This matter is out of scope of the pensions review, but we of course keep all taxes under review.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the London Stock Exchange suffered its biggest exit in a decade in 2024, with 88 companies moving out of the market compared with 18 new listings. The drop in liquidity and trading activity began with the 2008 financial crash but accelerated significantly with Brexit. We all want a rebound, but will the Government take the necessary steps to rebuild liquidity by strengthening our relationship with the EU? A customs union would be a good first step; as one investor said to me, “Outside of the EU, why choose London over New York?”

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and she knows I agree with her analysis of the effects of Brexit. Firms may, of course, choose to list in other countries for a variety of reasons, and the Government appreciate that there is a perception that firms, especially tech firms, will have larger valuations in the US. We are determined to change that perception, which is why the Government are taking forward an ambitious programme of reforms to boost the attractiveness of UK markets and to support firms to start, scale, list and, importantly, stay here. As she knows, through the Government’s work on the EU reset, we will absolutely strengthen our relationship with the European Union.

National Insurance Contributions: Hospitality Sector

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Well, it was quite a long question. The noble Earl asked me to break it down specifically, so I am answering him. By the spring Budget, that number had reached £16.3 billion, and by July, it had reached £22 billion.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the changes to the employers’ NICs threshold now mean that someone working part-time for just eight hours will be subject to employers’ NICs—a huge additional cost for the whole hospitality sector, including the pubs, which the Prime Minister says he champions. Will the Government not only reverse this hike but follow the Lib Dem proposal to halve employers’ NICs on part-time workers, saving the hospitality sector and the jobs of so many people who, because of responsibilities, disabilities or other limitations, absolutely rely on part-time work?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Baroness’s question is no. Of course, we recognise that the retail and hospitality sector has struggled in recent years. At the Budget, we introduced a number of policies, including freezing the business rates small business multiplier. Together with the small business rates relief, this will exempt over a third of properties from business rates. On national insurance, as I have said before, there are consequences to responsibility, but there would have been greater consequences to irresponsibility, and it is not clear to me how the noble Baroness would fund her policies.

Economic Growth: Public Spending

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the previous Government left a £22 billion black hole; they had no idea how to fund that. We have still heard absolutely no alternative put forward by the Conservative Party: no alternative for dealing with the challenges that we face, no alternative for restoring economic stability and therefore no plan for driving economic growth.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that growth will be very limited unless we fix the NHS, but that the NHS cannot be fixed until we significantly strengthen and expand both community health and social care services? So why are the Government levying increased employers’ NICs on GPs, dentists, pharmacies, hospices and care services so that they are now planning significant cuts? How does this make any sense? By the way, our proposals were costed and funded.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. With the greatest respect, she wants the investment in the National Health Service but is opposing the national insurance contributions increases that fund this increased investment. I am afraid that you cannot have one without the other.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

The Minister has frequently asked, not unreasonably, how it will all be paid for. I have made suggestions, including DST, a digital services tax. Interestingly, on the front page of the Times business pages today, and probably other journals as well, is the news that the Americans are going to put VAT on low-value consignments from the EU—bizarrely, two days after I mentioned it. There are opportunities to raise revenue elsewhere, apart from the NIC carve-out, which the Government might make. The purpose of having Bills reviewed in your Lordships’ House is to give the Government time to pause and consider. Are the Government really going to ask Peers of all parties and none to vote against such an amendment, knowing the damage this will do to people in the sector? I suspect that every constituency in the country has a care home that is going to suffer. This is the moment for the Government to think again and I very much hope they will be minded to do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking here as a winding speaker. The Committee will know that, on Monday, we discussed this whole sector in great detail, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has echoed the numbers and essentially the substance of that first discussion.

We on these Benches take a very different conclusion about an impact assessment with a potential delay attached and £10,000 per institution. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, gave an example of one of his particular interests facing a £1.1 million additional charge, so I do not think that £10,000 is going to make a ha’porth of difference to it. We think that the proposals are completely inadequate. We have always said that we need the exclusion of this whole sector from the changes in the NICs levies, and on that we stand our ground.

I shall say again to the Minister, who often replies that the Government have given an extra £600 million to this sector, that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and I have exactly the same figures, and the cost of the NICs Bill alone for this sector, according to the Nuffield Trust, is £900 million. So we are already £300 million behind, and that £600 million was meant to fill a whole lot of other cost gaps that continue for this sector, which is so crucial to our society.

I was interested to listen to the Conservatives on this issue. I was looking it up today: migrant workers make up 32% of care workers in England. Those figures are from November 2024. As I understand the policy announcement today, I am sure that the Conservative Party thinks that these are wonderful people to be able to look after our elderly and empty the bedpans, but they will be throwing them out of the country as soon as they have finished work, because they will not be permitted to become British citizens. So to me there is some interesting contradiction in this respect for the individuals and the assessment that they are not fit to be British. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, sees no conflict in that, but I suspect that many others will see it, and I am sure that my party does: when we tell these people that they are valued and respected, we really mean it.

Once again, we do not think that these amendments are adequate to the need, and we stand our ground on the amendments that we first moved—but then, of course, under Committee rules, withdrew—on Monday.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall address the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seek to increase the value of the employment allowance for those providing social care, and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seeks to require the laying in Parliament of an impact assessment on social care providers 12 months after commencement and every 12 months subsequently.

As a result of the measures in this Bill, combined with wider Budget measures, 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. Increasing the employment allowance for specific sectors would introduce new pressures that would require either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. It would also add complexity to the tax system.

The Government of course carefully consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As I have said previously, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in its tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments. In light of those points, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

In responding to the first group of amendments on our first day of Committee, the Minister made a virtue of this Bill simplifying the employment allowance. He said that any amendments trying to introduce sector-based exemptions were “incoherent”. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has argued that exemptions from this Bill should not be made because they make more complex a tax system that is already noted for its complexity. My Amendments 55 and 56 would reduce complexity and introduce more simplification. I commend them to the Minister on that basis, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I think that the amendments we discussed on Monday would have covered the public authorities issue but I am not absolutely sure, so clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful. Can he also clarify for us the protections put in place for micro-businesses? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is usually right when she identifies these issues. It is beginning to sound as though the sector is somehow not qualifying for that level of protection. It would be most helpful to understand that.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her amendments in this group; for her extremely well-made case as to how we might look to soften the blow for public services and the private sector; and for drawing attention to so many areas on the edge of public services that will be affected, such as dentists and childcare jobs. This is where the impact will be widely felt across the country.

On Amendments 54 and 55, the Government have stated that the purpose of this Bill is to repair the public finances. A key aspect of this plan is to ensure that public authorities can continue to operate efficiently without being overly burdened by rising employment costs. By increasing the employment allowance for public authorities to £20,000, we would reduce the financial pressure on them to provide essential services. Increasing the employment allowance specifically helps offset rising staffing costs, which are expected only to grow as the Government invest more in public services.

As the Government focus on boosting public sector capacity to meet future challenges in depopulation, the higher allowance would support that goal. It would provide greater flexibility to focus on improving service quality and enhancing delivery without worrying about escalating employment costs. The proposal aligns with the Government’s goal of unlocking economic growth. The ability to support and maintain a strong and capable public sector workforce means that these services can continue to contribute positively to the wider economy. This tax increase will inevitably drive policy-driven unemployment, which we have talked about, as already evidenced in the recent jobs numbers.

I understand that the Minister believes that the Government had no flexibility when they produced their Budget and made these tax choices. However, as the months have passed, the economic situation has changed and there has been quite a bit of wage inflation. As such, these proposals to increase the employment allowance could be cost-neutral to the amount of money raised, and should certainly not be immediately dismissed as unfunded policy decisions.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, seek to expand the eligibility of the employment allowance to domestic workers and the public sector, and to increase the value of the employment allowance for organisations carrying out functions of a public nature.

As we discussed on the previous day in Committee, the employment allowance was introduced in 2014 by the previous Government. Currently, eligible small businesses with employer national insurance bills of £100,000 or less receive £5,000 of employment allowance, which means that they can deduct £5,000 from the total employer national insurance that they pay on their employees’ wages. This Bill increases that employment allowance to £10,500 from April 2025. It also seeks to expand the employment allowance to all eligible employers by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold, which will simplify and reform employer national insurance so that all eligible employers now benefit. All of the remaining eligibility criteria remain unchanged.

As has been the case since the employment allowance was introduced in 2014, organisations operating wholly or mainly in the public sector are not eligible to claim it. As we discussed during the previous session in Committee, eligibility for the employment allowance is not determined by sector but depends on the make-up of an individual business’s work. The HMRC guidance explains that this is based on whether an organisation is doing 50% or more of its work in the public sector.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked for some specific figures in relation to that. The number of those claiming the employment allowance varies from year to year because the amount of work done in the public sector varies from year to year. It is for individual businesses to determine the amount of work that they do in the public sector, therefore data is not collected in the way the noble Baroness asks for.

The noble Baroness also asked for specific additional assessments. As I have said many times before—she is no doubt sick of me saying so—the Government have provided the impact assessments that we intend to provide and do not intend to provide any further such assessments. I am not aware of any plans for a specific information campaign, in the way that she asks for, but I am very happy to take her suggestion back and discuss it with colleagues.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I thought that the Minister was about to sit down, so I apologise if I moved too soon. I would just like to clarify something. In the situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, where somebody employs a nanny, a carer or whatever else, I have always worked on the assumption that the employment allowance at £10,900 would, in effect, negate any employer’s national insurance on that individual. If that is not correct, it would be helpful for me to understand that. I thought that that was how the micro-business protection worked; if I have got it wrong, please let me know.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I think that I have an answer for the noble Baroness but I would like to double-check it so, if she does not mind, I will write to her to be absolutely certain on this point.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Thank you.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

In conclusion, the Government have provided £4.7 billion of funding to support public sector employers with increased employer national insurance. Expanding eligibility for, or increasing the value of, the allowance would come with additional costs and would reduce the revenue generated by this Bill; this would then require either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. In the light of these points, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment. Local government finance is in a parlous state, with more than 70% of funding used for adult and children’s social care, which, due to demographic pressures, is growing substantially above GDP and inflation. In some places, this is exacerbated by housing costs due to the housing shortages across the country.

The latest local government finance settlement has not helped, as the additional government funding is the worst I can recall, after taking account of national insurance, since I became chair of the Local Government Association in 2019. I agree with my noble friends’ comments on this. Yet the financial pressures on local government continue, forcing many councils to put up council tax by the maximum of 5% and, in several cases, to seek additional rises above that. National insurance rises pose a particular burden on local councils. The LGA, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fuller, estimates that the cost is around £1.7 billion, of which around £1.2 billion is indirect. The Government have committed to fund the direct costs of the national insurance rise but, as my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, that does not even cover the full direct costs.

I emphasise that figure of £1.2 billion. There has been some commentary that it needs to be absorbed by suppliers. Frankly, that is not realistic. For instance, in one of the biggest areas—social care staff and care workers—you have agencies that just are not capable of absorbing that level of cost. They will have two options: get a price rise from the council, or stand away from their contracts. We councils cannot afford that so we will inevitably be forced to pay the extra amounts of money.

For example, in Central Bedfordshire Council—where I am a councillor and therefore declare an interest—the shortfall is around £2 million for the direct costs after the financial settlement. I talked to the finance director yesterday and he estimated indirect costs of around £10 million. To put that in context, that is more than a 5% council tax rise will generate. So, even after such a rise, we will not cover the national insurance rise.

That will inevitably mean that we will have to look at cuts to our essential services, the majority of which are statutory—the classic potholes, parks, libraries, et cetera. They are all up for grabs, so to speak. That is just not fair on our residents, who are paying additional council tax and seeing cuts to their services. I support the amendment, so that the impact of the national insurance rise can be truly worked out on a council basis and then properly funded.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I realise that I am very much in danger of becoming repetitive, but this is the last grouping that we will deal with today. If I may, I always feel like cheering on the noble Lord, Lord Porter, every time I hear him speak, which may put him in jeopardy, but it is probably reflected by voices across the Committee.

The issues being raised are crucial. I will not repeat the discussion that we had last Monday and Wednesday, which covered this same area in great detail. However, the amendments put forward then, which would basically exclude adult and child social care, housing associations, charities and others from the changes in the employers’ NICs threshold, would answer very many of the problems that local authorities are going to face. While I understand that this amendment seeks an impact assessment, we go for exclusion of these various necessary services and on that, once again, we stand our ground.

I thought that there might be some mention of town and parish councils in this group, which will get no protection at all from the increases in employers’ national insurance that they will face. We put forward an amendment last week that would exclude them from this. Once again, I ask that town and parish councils not be overlooked in the process of understanding that the public sector will be protected. With the changes that the Government are mooting in going to strategic authorities, town and parish councils will be the only real local government layer left, quite frankly, where somebody within a community knows that community, speaks to the people in it and acts on their behalf. Because they are funded purely through tax rather than through some government grant, the Government have not given them the off-set for the additional costs that they will have to carry. They amount to so little—£10 million a year. The Government would not even notice it. Without that, because they have no other sources of income, they will absolutely be required to increase their taxes by between 1.5% and 3.5%.

These councils should not be overlooked. They might be very small, but they are vital. For many people in this era, they are the connection to politics in a world where there is so much cynicism over politics and people do not feel the reality of it any more. I hope very much that the Conservatives, having made such strong statements on the effect of all these changes, will consider coming into the Lobbies with us on Report.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 70. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Fuller has joined the Committee today and spoken with such passion and eloquence, and I support his proposal for an impact assessment of the costs involved with this Act on local authorities. It was also good to hear from my noble friend Lord Porter; as a former civil servant many years ago, I was amused by his comment about policies hanging around in a drawer. I particularly remember that when I used to go to the Council in Brussels; there were a lot of proposals that used to hang around for a long time.

I agree that the jobs tax is the wrong approach, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson that there are some tricky issues in parts of local government. I have to say that I have often been an admirer of local government, particularly councils, over a long career.

This week the Government confirmed £502 million of funding to help local authorities to cover the increased costs of directly employed staff due to the changes in the national insurance contributions. Ministers have also allocated £13 million separately to mayoral combined authorities, with some allocations to follow in due course. As we have heard, local authorities will need additional support in the face of the jobs tax. I welcome the fact that Ministers have brought this support forward, but we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller that that the allocation is totally inadequate. He called it a £1.226 billion headache, while my noble friend Lord Jamieson, also very experienced in this area, explained that it is just not possible to absorb these sorts of costs, for example, by reducing prices to suppliers. Services will inevitably have to be cut.

I shall highlight some examples where we believe the allocations will fall short. Hampshire County Council is facing a £10 million increase in costs due to the increase in NICs but the allocation it has received from the Government is just £7 million, leaving a £3 million shortfall, which I suspect is quite typical. My noble friend Lord Jackson talked of the likely demise of the lido in Peterborough and of libraries that are closing, although I am glad to say that, so far, we have kept our libraries open in Wiltshire. We are also hearing reports from Kensington and Chelsea and Harlow councils that they are facing a shortfall following the announcement of the allocations.

Clearly the Government’s additional allocations need to cover every penny of the increased cost to local authorities, otherwise they are going to have to cut services. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could commit to engaging with MHCLG to seek assurances about what is happening and how that could be improved.

Councils, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller, have been treated a lot worse than sectors like the police, the Civil Service and the National Health Service. This is a case in point for the argument we have been making throughout Committee where the Government have failed to produce thorough and comprehensive impact assessments. Mistakes like this can be made. The new refusal of the Treasury to provide essential information in debates like this, when such major changes are taking place, is extremely disappointing, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, in her usually trenchant way. The Minister needs to listen to the Opposition when we call for a proper assessment of the impact of this policy on our local authorities. We want to know about other sectors too, but local authorities are this particular group’s concern and we will be returning to the charge.

The truth is that the Bill is very damaging. It will have perverse effects that will reduce the expected national insurance and tax take, as we have heard from the OBR, and it will have a negative effect on jobs, prices and growth. I hope the Minister will think further in the light of these four days of debate before Report.

I should say that I have enjoyed this Committee because of the insights it has given into many sectors and their challenges. It has been an extraordinary cross-cutting debate, and I look forward to Report on 25 February after our much-needed winter break.

Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure what that has to do with the Question before us, but the Prime Minister and the Minister involved absolutely have set out the circumstances of that case in the letters that they exchanged.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that a key reason why exposing Covid fraud has been so slow and difficult is the inadequacy of whistleblowing protection, which exposes so many whistleblowers to financial ruin and career destruction? The harm is not tackled by the duty of candour, which is important but is not whistleblower protection. Will the Government please deliver urgent reform as a crucial way not just to solve this problem, but to deter or catch early any kind of future abuse? I recommend to the Minister proposals for an overarching office of the whistleblower.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and I absolutely agree with the underlying point she is making. I met Tom Hayhoe, the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner, last Friday, to make sure that I was fully prepared for this Question. I discussed his work with him, and he told me that he is considering a whistleblowing mechanism to enable the public to draw attention to abuses they are aware of. The work he is doing is absolutely in line with what the noble Baroness is asking for.