National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Report

Clause 1: Rate of secondary Class 1 contributions

Amendment 1

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.