Health and Social Care Levy Bill - New clause 5

This new clause would require an equality impact assessment of the Bill, providing a detailed analysis of its effects on various aspects including income inequality, wealth disparity, geographical inequalities across regions, and protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Asked the Government if they have ruled out state-sponsored insurance, suggesting a need to explore ideas similar to those proposed by Dilnot. He is interested in whether there could be an open mind towards exploring such options.

Requested clarity on payslips, suggesting that the levy should be clearly identified and accurately reflect its proportion in overall social care costs. This is to prevent potential misinterpretation by employees.

Asked whether cutting back on projects like HS2 and reducing public waste could balance off the new levy, questioning if this would send a positive message about fiscal responsibility to the British people.

Asked for details on the costs associated with introducing the levy, as well as its projected revenue from individuals beyond state retirement age. He emphasised the need to assess if these costs are worthwhile.

Clarified thinking on recurring £50 million to £60 million feature.

Suggested combining existing national insurance contributions allocated directly to the NHS with health and social care levy for clarity.

Supported having a separate health and social care levy to better connect people's understanding of where their money goes.

Asked if having a separate social care levy would be clearer and more transparent. Also questioned the government's intentions regarding their manifesto commitment.

Raised concerns about the Government using health and social care to introduce payments for healthcare.

Asked why the Government does not deliver a universal free-at-the-point-of-use social care system like the NHS.

Noted concerns about implications for the devolution settlement, questioning the lack of requirement to consult devolved administrations.

Referenced 2014 Care Act and concerns about similar future cancellations of social care measures.

Highlighted the levy’s effect on police and local government budgets, questioning the assessment made by the Minister.

Asked for an estimate of business compliance costs and software changes required for the new levy.

Mr. Murray argues against the Bill's tax rise, stating it unfairly targets employment income while exempting wealth incomes like dividends and rental properties. He raises concerns about increased inequality between regions and impact on job creation. Emphasises lack of cross-party consensus and calls for a more equitable approach to funding social care.

Mr. Poulter questions Mr. Murray's claim about the absence of cross-party consensus, pointing out that the shadow Care Minister previously called for a health and care levy in 2018.

Mr. Murrison seeks clarification on the types of landlords or property-based businesses Mr. Murray targets and questions how much revenue could be raised from such an alternative approach.

Fysh argues that his amendment would provide scope for the Government to consider using funds from a national insurance-related levy to incentivise pooled savings schemes. He clarifies that these schemes aim specifically at addressing social care costs and not healthcare liabilities, aiming for quicker funding integration between health and social care.

Poulter raises practical challenges regarding the clear definition of what constitutes health versus social care, which could complicate their integration if Fysh's proposal were implemented.

Murrison expresses concern that the proposed system might exacerbate the separation between health and social care rather than integrate them, suggesting that clause 2's flexibility is better suited for facilitating this integration.

Mr. Flynn opposed the Bill, stating that it would disproportionately affect young people and those working hard in society. He emphasised that about 50% of income generated by the Bill would come from individuals under age 45, whose lives have already been impacted negatively by Brexit and the pandemic. The amendments aim to highlight these issues and push for an economic impact assessment predicting a potential unemployment of 50,000 jobs. He also questioned the logic behind increasing national insurance when significant funds are spent on nuclear weapons.

Mr. Poulter intervened to argue that the single largest transformation in health and care over the past 20-30 years was when Tony Blair increased national insurance contributions, significantly boosting funding for patient care across the UK. He urged Mr. Flynn to consider the positive impact the current levy could have on improving cancer care and reducing waiting times.

Corrected the cost estimate for HMRC to £40 million to £50 million, clarifying that it was previously recalled imperfectly.

Asked about potential tax losses from the national insurance and care tax rises, suggesting there may be significant offsetting costs that need to be accounted for.

Ms. Whittome argues that the policy is unfair on low-income workers, care workers and those needing social care. She suggests a wealth tax as an alternative to taxing the poorest and lowest paid. She calls for a national care service funded by taxing wealth rather than income.

Expresses concerns about hypothecation, suggesting that the proposed social care tax may only cover one fifth of actual costs. Highlights potential misleading information for constituents and argues against overcomplicating the tax system. Suggests growing the economy faster as a better solution to deficit reduction than introducing new taxes. Emphasises the need for clarity on how the policy will impact individuals' financial situations, particularly in terms of care home fees and quality of care.

New clause 3 proposes an alternative tax system that focuses on taxing wealth rather than working people. The current tax system favours the wealthy, who pay lower taxes compared to those earning minimum wage. This amendment aims to reform capital gains tax and introduce a direct wealth tax on the richest 1%, which could raise significant funds for social care.

Intervened to challenge Richard Burgon, questioning whether he has convinced his Front Bench to propose a concrete alternative. He highlighted that the Government is being honest about increasing national insurance contributions.

Commented on Richard Burgon's intervention, noting that he had already finished his speech but was interrupted by Richard Holden. She suggested that the House appreciated Burgon's timing.

Intervened to assert the principle of universalism—universalism of the welfare state and NHS.

Agreed with Mr. Chope that civil servants can work effectively from home, suggesting a reduction in office leases as a means to cut costs.

The hon. Member raised concerns about the lack of explicit guarantees that funds from the new levy will be allocated to social care, questioning the Bill's transparency in this regard.

The hon. Member intervened by suggesting a speculative scenario about reforming social care without raising taxes and questioned the applicability of the Barnett formula, but overall supported the need for integrating healthcare and social care funding.

The Bill lacks a plan for social care or any commitment that a plan will ever be in place, or even that any of the money raised by the levy will go to social care. The Government's approach will hit businesses creating jobs and it will disproportionately hit working families and young people, those on low and middle incomes, and some parts of the country more than others.

This is a Bill and a tax without a mandate, in Scotland or even in England. It undermines devolution and it is a power grab by the UK Government on Scottish autonomy.