Finance Bill 2019-20 - Clause on National Insurance Contributions

The speaker supports the Bill as it aims to address fiscal challenges inherited from previous administrations, emphasising the need for tough but necessary decisions.

Questions whether businesses will suffer due to suppressed wages or job losses because of increased national insurance contributions.

Asks for clarity on support measures available for small businesses, charities, and voluntary sector organisations affected by the Bill.

Raises concern that thousands of small businesses may face difficult decisions such as laying off staff due to increased national insurance contributions.

Welcomes the doubling of employment allowance but questions why it does not apply equally to private and co-operative nurseries, which provide a significant portion of childcare.

States that businesses are bearing the brunt of the national insurance increase and criticises the Chancellor's approach as abandoning them without a safety net.

Highlights the negative impact on Scottish hospitality businesses due to increased national insurance contributions and lack of business rates relief.

Questions how hospices, which typically employ more than four people, will be protected under the new national insurance contribution rules.

Suggests better targeting of micro-businesses and social enterprises to help manage tough fiscal measures more effectively.

Raises concerns about how increased salary bills will affect morale and economic growth among small businesses.

Supports investment in NHS and public services, arguing that better access to appointments can help people return to work, contributing positively to the economy.

Critiques Labour's resiling on their manifesto promise not to increase national insurance rates.

Suggests that the Minister inadvertently misled the House regarding OBR statements.

Seeks clarity on how air ambulances, like hospices, will be impacted by increased national insurance contributions.

Questions whether arm's length bodies delivering public services will be exempt from the national insurance rise, raising concerns about potential damage to these services.

Asks if officials have calculated the net impact of the national insurance cost on NHS and local government budgets after exemptions.

He argues that increasing employers' national insurance contributions contradicts Labour's election promise not to increase taxes on working people. Public polling indicates a negative reaction to this measure, with nearly twice as many people thinking it would leave the UK worse off than better off.

He points out that the economic confidence index has dropped significantly since October, indicating a decline in business and public faith in the Government's economic policies.

He challenges Richard Fuller to discuss polling data for Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s Budget, implying that the current Government's policies have better public support.

She reminds Fuller of his role as a Labour Member of Parliament, suggesting he should align his criticisms with party lines.

He criticises the Conservative party for having high income taxes and VAT during their tenure in government, arguing that they too increased taxes on working people.

Swayne questions Labour’s support for the health and social care levy, which also involved increasing national insurance contributions for employees.

The speaker criticises the Conservative approach to fiscal management and argues that the current Government's Budget delivers necessary funding for public services, including NHS improvements. He emphasises the need to address a £22 billion deficit caused by previous governments and highlights investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

The speaker argues that the measure disproportionately affects vulnerable businesses and charities. He suggests raising corporation tax or targeting social media companies as alternative funding methods.

The speaker seeks reassurances for GPs regarding the sustainability of NHS general practices amid proposed tax changes.

The speaker criticises the proposal's impact on primary care recruitment and social care funding, highlighting systemic issues in NHS access.

The speaker raises concerns about the bill's negative effects on business operations and economic growth, citing an entrepreneur's letter indicating potential cuts to recruitment due to increased costs.

The speaker highlights the impact of the Budget on a family-run restaurant, suggesting it will cost £50,000 to £60,000 and lead to recruitment freezes. She questions how this can deliver economic growth.

Highlighted concerns about the timing of allocations being made in the usual way, suggesting that it is too late for health services to wait six weeks after the budget announcement.

Reiterated the point about individuals returning from mental health crises being disproportionately affected by the increase in national insurance contributions, discouraging employment for those who can only work part-time.

Cited criticism from the IFS about some Liberal Democrat tax measures and questioned whether they would oppose a Bill that delivers actual investment in health and social care despite potential risks.

The hon. Member supports increasing national insurance contributions from large businesses and wealthy individuals to fund public investments in healthcare, education, and energy efficiency. He argues that this will rebuild a nation weakened by years of under-investment, improve living standards, and ensure essential services are adequately staffed.

The hon. Member expresses concern that 95% of businesses in his constituency expect things to worsen as a result of the Budget, questioning the efficacy of raising national insurance contributions from large businesses.

The hon. Member criticises the proposed legislation as catastrophic for small and medium-sized businesses in hospitality and retail sectors, describing it as a kamikaze piece of legislation.

The hon. Member complains about the lack of business rates relief for Scottish businesses hit by national insurance contribution increases, emphasising that this is not a problem confined to the Scottish Government but affects local businesses directly.

The hon. Member urges the government to review and revisit the impact of national insurance contribution increases on health and care providers, warning that it could lead to closures in hospices and other vital services.

The hon. Member supports the overall investment goals of the Budget, challenging opposition parties to propose alternatives that do not compromise funding for essential public services such as schools and hospitals.

Anderson argued against raising taxes on working people, questioning why the Government is now debating national insurance contributions when they previously promised not to raise taxes. He cited examples from his constituency where hospitality businesses were struggling and could not see a way forward due to the proposed increase in national insurance rates.

Waugh defended the Government's tough decisions, criticising the previous Conservative government for not taking responsibility and pointing out economic challenges inherited from them. He highlighted the fiscal drag caused by freezing tax thresholds under the previous regime and praised the current government’s plan to end this practice.

Stuart questioned whether there was an issue with electronic equipment, noting that it might be causing confusion about the debate topic. He suggested that Labour members preferred to criticise rather than discuss their own policies.

Nokes clarified that Waugh's speech was part of a broader discussion on the National Insurance Contributions Bill. She also intervened to raise concerns about service provision in primary care due to national insurance payments.

Concerned about the impact on small businesses, public services, and third sector organisations in Wales. Raised concerns about OBR estimates indicating 76% of costs will be passed onto workers via lower real wages. Emphasised the high proportion of Welsh workforce employed in public sector (30%) which could face £380 million increase in NICs costs. Also raised concerns about social care providers and universities facing significant additional costs without reimbursement from government.

Argued for raising employer’s national insurance contributions as a fairer option than increasing taxes on working people. Highlighted economic and moral case by citing healthcare issues in East Kent, including long waiting times and poor staff satisfaction. Emphasised structural problems caused by Tory government's mismanagement of NHS and underfunding.

Argues that the increase in employer national insurance contributions is a 'jobs tax' and will harm businesses, especially those with lower-paid workers. Cites specific impacts on pubs, restaurants, GP surgeries, hospices, and the NHS. Emphasises the need for better support from the Government.

Defends the increase in employer national insurance contributions as necessary to fund public services and address economic challenges. Highlights positive impacts on public servants, such as armed forces, police, teachers, and NHS staff.

Highlights negative impacts on local authorities, community pharmacies, and nurseries. Calls for alternative funding methods such as reversing tax cuts for big banks or asking social media giants to pay their fair share.

He supports the Bill and emphasises its necessity due to the parlous state of public finances, advocating for support to small businesses. He highlights the importance of addressing issues such as high NHS waiting times and crises in various sectors. Jim Dickson also acknowledges the measures announced at the Budget, including increasing employment allowances for small businesses.

Intervenes briefly to express disagreement with Jim Dickson's statement.

Critiques Labour for not acknowledging the importance of a thriving private sector in funding public services. He argues that without productivity gains and structural reform, further funding will fail to deliver value for money. Thomas highlights the previous Government's failure to address NHS productivity and criticises the current Government's lack of incentive for reform due to union influence.

She supports the legislation, arguing it is a necessary step to address economic challenges left by previous Conservative mismanagement. She highlights benefits for small businesses and workers in her constituency.

He criticises the Government's approach as unfair to Scotland, highlighting financial shortfalls and economic pressures on public services and private businesses. He argues it will reduce growth, suppress wages, cost jobs, increase inflation, and lower living standards.

Argues for the amendment, highlighting its benefits for small businesses and local economies. Emphasises the importance of balanced budgets and investing in public services such as health care.

Opposes the amendment, arguing that it is bad for the economy and detrimental to healthcare providers. He cites examples like hospices losing funds due to national insurance rises and highlights the lack of understanding by the government regarding its impact on indirect healthcare services.

Multiple MPs rose, indicating they wish to contribute but their specific positions and arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

The Labour MP supports the measures in the Bill as necessary steps to secure long-term financial stability. He argues that the previous Conservative government's policies led to economic instability, wasted taxpayer money, and left a £22 billion deficit, necessitating tough decisions such as increasing national insurance contributions for employers. The amendment will help fund essential public services like healthcare, education, and social care, while also protecting small businesses through increased employment allowances.

The Liberal Democrat MP opposes the changes to national insurance contributions due to concerns about their impact on various sectors, including healthcare, small businesses, and cultural venues. He highlights specific examples of how these changes will affect local communities negatively, such as reduced funding for arts and cultural institutions like Sheringham Little Theatre, and potential job losses in tourism. The MP suggests alternative solutions like a tech tax to address revenue-raising needs more fairly.

Tom Hayes argued that the debate should focus on scrutinizing Labour's Budget rather than engaging in party politics. He highlighted the economic mess left by the previous Conservative government, such as a £22 billion black hole and high mortgage rates. He emphasised the need for an NHS with more appointments, investment in SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities), social care funding, and overall improvements to public services. Hayes urged Opposition Members to support the Government's measures, suggesting that doing so would align with voters' desires for better public service delivery.

Damian Hinds criticised the Labour government's approach, arguing that it undermines businesses by increasing national insurance contributions. He used examples like nurseries and universities to illustrate how increased costs would impact private sector employers. He also cited issues in the NHS, particularly with GPs lacking certainty about their financial future. Hinds stressed that such taxes ultimately fall on people through lower wages or reduced employment, affecting low-income workers disproportionately. He pointed out contradictions in Labour's policies and warned of potential negative impacts on youth unemployment.

Tomlinson highlights that public sector debt reached 100% of GDP under the Conservative government, constraining fiscal sustainability. He argues for a focus on productivity increases in the NHS through capital investment and stresses that Labour's manifesto commitments are being fulfilled to improve public services.

Spencer questions whether Labour's pre-election promise of not raising taxes on working people might be a factor in the current economic challenges, implying that this could undermine trust in their commitments.

Anderson raises concerns about public sector wage increases without corresponding productivity gains since Labour took office, challenging Tomlinson to explain this discrepancy.

Thomas criticises Labour for allegedly inheriting good economic conditions in 2022 but failing to deliver on promises, suggesting that the electorate may have been misled.

Wilson asserts that Labour's economic policies represent a breach of their election promise not to raise taxes on working people. He emphasises the importance of trust in politics and criticises Labour for breaking promises.

Critiques the increase in employer national insurance contributions as it will make things harder for GPs, social care providers, charities and local authorities. Provides examples of specific impacts on West Meads GP surgery and Witterings Medical Centre, highlighting potential reductions in staffing hours and increased hospital admissions. Also discusses the impact on hospices and charities, citing St Wilfrid’s hospice as an example with a £175,000 increase. Mentions Stonepillow charity facing higher costs due to rising demand for services.

Argues that increasing national insurance is a tax on jobs in the private sector, resulting in less employment, fewer bonuses, smaller pay rises and higher prices. Calls for radical cuts to the size of the state and reducing bureaucracy to encourage prosperity.

Raises concerns about the impact on hospices and social care providers, citing Together for Short Lives’ estimate of a £5 million annual increase in costs. Also mentions MHA’s estimated additional cost of £4.6 million. Urges exemption of social care providers and hospices from the tax rise.

Critiques the Bill as a thinly veiled austerity measure that will disproportionately burden Scotland. Provides figures from Scottish Government and Fraser of Allander Institute showing significant financial impacts on public services, particularly NHS. Discusses specific examples in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey such as local care homes facing an £800,000 bill and dentists potentially going private to recoup costs.

Expresses concern over unintended consequences of tax hikes on small businesses, GPs, social care providers, and farm businesses. Cites Langport surgery in her constituency facing an additional cost of £45,000 annually due to national insurance rise. Argues that the measure will reduce potential output by 0.1% and lead to lower wages and profits for businesses. Suggests fairer tax changes such as reversing Conservative tax cuts to big banks, increasing digital services tax, doubling remote gaming duty, and reforming capital gains tax.

Raises concerns about impact on GPs, dentists, pharmacies, care providers, and small businesses in Eastleigh. Mentions Crestwood pre-school facing an additional £45,000 annually due to employer NICs increase. Describes Forest Footsteps Childcare's potential closure due to extra costs of £13,000 a year. YMCA Eastleigh nursery facing an extra cost of £95,000 a year. Calls for reassurance from the Minister that early years and childcare providers will not be adversely affected.

The Bill introduces a double whammy with rate rises and reduction in the threshold, making it a tax on working people. It is fundamentally regressive policy leaving many out in the cold and giving businesses no choice but to freeze hiring and wages. The hon. Gentleman also mentions that this will hit doctors and nurses, charities and voluntary organisations, hospices, homeless support groups and disability charities. The speaker urges the Government to reverse course.

Intervention: Asks if it is concerning that the Chancellor refused to rule out further tax rises in future Budgets.

Intervention: Questions whether the Government will provide full details on compensation for non-core public sector activities that are vital to the NHS.

Intervention: Asks if he would increase borrowing, a different tax or make spending cuts to oppose the Bill's measures.

The Government's priority is to restore economic stability, repair public finances, and support long-term growth. The Bill requires employers to contribute more by increasing employer national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%, reducing the secondary threshold for employers from £9,000 to £5,000, and adjusting employment allowance limits. This will raise revenues for the NHS and contributory benefits such as the state pension. The Government plans to provide additional day-to-day funding to stabilise public services and address healthcare sector concerns through consultations with providers.

Questions the stability of Scottish Government's finances, citing a £200 million deficit rising to £450 million with partner agencies included. Challenges the minister on the adequacy and reliability of funding support.

Asks which decision was harder: giving an inflation-busting pay rise to union leaders or cutting winter fuel payments, implying concern about funding priorities and their impact on public services.

Suggests exempting all health and care providers from national insurance contributions to address concerns over increased costs for these sectors.

Questions the Chancellor's understanding of economic policy impacts and suggests Liz Truss would be a better Prime Minister, expressing dissatisfaction with current government decisions.

Asks about the correction made by OBR to reduce sums for RDEL compensation just for public sector organisations, questioning the reliability of data and support provided.

Confirms continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament, indicating concern over potential impacts on smaller businesses.