Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Amendment) Bill - New Clause 1

The amendment proposes that specified employers, including care providers and NHS-related services, continue to pay secondary contributions at the rate of 13.8%. This ensures financial stability for these organisations which are vital in providing healthcare and social care services.

The proposed amendments would provide that adult social care, hospice, primary care, nurseries and charities continue to pay contributions at current rates. This is crucial for maintaining financial stability within these sectors while also recognising their essential roles in supporting vulnerable individuals.

The increase in employer national insurance contributions will have damaging consequences for small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those in the biotech and life sciences sector. It will also severely impact GP surgeries and care homes, undermining essential frontline healthcare services that are critical to supporting the NHS’s mission of moving from treatment to prevention. The additional costs will push many businesses, including Arthur Rank hospice with an extra £230,000 in payroll costs, towards bankruptcy. This tax increase is likely to exacerbate the GP crisis by driving more practices out of business and causing severe financial strain on social care providers.

GP surgeries in my constituency have warned that the national insurance increase will directly undermine patient care due to years of neglect and severe financial strain. The process of addressing these costs through GP contract negotiations is too slow and could delay staffing decisions until spring.

The Government’s approach to national insurance costs via GP contracts will likely result in recruitment delays, cutbacks, and further strain on an already hard winter for the NHS. Without immediate reassurance from the Government, it risks crippling primary care services.

Charities, voluntary sector organisations, and GP surgeries are already operating on thin margins of financial sustainability. This measure will severely impact these vital organisations that uphold secondary care through primary care and social services.

The increase in national insurance contributions for GPs as employers is causing additional stress on contracts, leading to a high number of GP practices returning their contracts. This issue extends beyond England and Scotland to Northern Ireland where 75% of domiciliary care and home care are provided by private suppliers who will be severely impacted.

A compromise could be to exempt hospices from the national insurance increase. This would ensure that elderly and frail people are properly looked after, improving palliative care.

The amendment is crucial to repair public finances and rebuild trust. Despite previous opposition, it was necessary due to inherited issues from the Conservative government. Emphasises the need for honest conversations with the public.

Questions how national insurance contributions will support NHS and care homes, noting that many are private institutions commissioned by NHS. Calls for clarity on funding sources.

Critiques the use of 'ultimately' in discussions, emphasising immediate action is needed rather than vague future promises. Suggests the bill will lead to difficulties.

Defends against criticisms and emphasises the need for shorter interventions. Supports the government's position on the amendment, questioning how it will help NHS and care homes.

The speaker argues that raising national insurance will hurt small businesses, healthcare providers, charities, and childcare services. He cites the OBR estimating that 76% of the tax burden will be passed on to working people through lower wages and higher prices.

The MP interjects, questioning why the hon. Gentleman did not make similar arguments when his Government implemented a health and social care levy.

The MP asks how much of the pandemic money went to Tory party mates and donors through dodgy contracts, implying opposition to the current government's actions.

The MP interjects, suggesting that the Treasury either knowingly implemented tax rises on these industries or did so by mistake because it does not understand the issues.

The MP questions how it is in the public interest to attack local institutions such as St Barnabas hospice and GPs who are struggling.

The MP suggests that Labour Back Benchers need to speak to their Ministers about the amendments, highlighting potential risks for social care services and the NHS.

The MP cites job losses since the implementation of new taxes as evidence against the current government's policies.

The MP emphasises the importance of conducting an impact assessment on services due to the nature of the UK economy, which relies heavily on human capital as a fixed cost.

The hon. Member welcomes the Budget's long-term fiscal planning, arguing it moves away from austerity measures of previous governments. She emphasises simplifying tax systems through consistent approaches rather than numerous amendments. The Member also highlights improvements to GP funding and quality, as well as support for small businesses with increased employment allowance and police funding to tackle crime on high streets.

Brandreth supports the amendment, citing concerns from local businesses about increased costs due to higher national insurance contributions. She provides examples of impacts on nursery schools and hospices in her constituency, emphasising the need for a compromise to avoid further economic strain.

Hussain interjects to highlight the impact on GPs and hospitals in Blackburn, arguing that increased national insurance contributions will exacerbate existing shortages of GP appointments and strain healthcare services.

Cooper interjects to point out the negative impact on part-time workers, particularly in the hospitality sector, due to reduced hours exempt from employers' national insurance contributions.

Supports the measures in the Budget. Acknowledges the importance of small businesses and highlights benefits such as raising the employment allowance to £10,500 for small businesses. Emphasises that 75% of funds raised will come from large companies, not small ones.

Raises a point of order regarding the relevance of Brexit to the debate on National Insurance Contributions. Requests adherence to discussing only relevant topics related to national insurance contributions.

Responds to a point of order by reminding the speaker about the need to stick to discussing national insurance contributions rather than other topics such as Brexit.

Intervenes to express concern that increasing national insurance contributions on GPs, dentists and pharmacists will undermine the drive to move care away from hospitals and back into the community.

Eastwood highlighted the unique challenges facing Northern Ireland’s healthcare, social care, childcare sectors. She cited financial pressures on community and voluntary groups due to the national insurance increase, which are exacerbated by higher public sector dependency and underfunding in Northern Ireland. She emphasised the importance of these sectors as a cornerstone for service delivery and their vulnerability to funding cuts, urging exemption from the proposed hike.

Conservatives oppose the National Insurance increase as it harms business confidence and reduces investment. They argue that the policy raises taxes on working people, making it harder for businesses to employ staff and driving down wages, leading to economic contraction and job losses.

Questions the effectiveness of Labour policies compared to those in Wales, pointing out worse outcomes there. Challenges the claim that childcare funding is inadequate.

Asks if Stella Creasy supports a proposal to consider households as one unit for childcare eligibility, suggesting this could solve certain issues with current policies.

Supports the idea of investing upstream in public services to alleviate pressure on downstream systems like the NHS, suggesting this principle applies broadly across various sectors.

Agrees with the logic of investing in early years provision and argues that it should apply similarly to primary care, hospices, and charities.

Mr. Doogan indicated assent in agreement with the concerns raised by Helen Maguire regarding the impact of increased national insurance contributions on businesses and essential healthcare providers.

Ms. Maguire expresses deep concern about the economic and social consequences of the Bill, particularly its impact on small businesses and essential healthcare providers in her constituency. She cites specific examples to illustrate how the legislation will impose significant financial burdens leading to job losses and reduced services. She calls for exemptions for essential providers from the tax rise and suggests alternative measures such as reversing tax cuts for big banks and introducing a fairer form of capital gains tax.

Mr. Evans interjects to question Ms. Maguire about the National Pharmacy Association's collective action in response to the Government’s Budget, suggesting a different perspective on the impact of the bill.

He acknowledges the need for a broader conversation about funding social care services through general taxation. He criticises the current reliance on charities and philanthropic grants, suggesting it is unsustainable. The MP also discusses local impacts of the national insurance increase, highlighting the financial strain on organisations like the citizens advice bureau and YMCA North Staffordshire.

He urges Ministers to look at whether they can create a more coherent and joined-up approach for the £22 billion going into the NHS, so that it works to improve healthcare.

He agrees with his colleague that a fair taxation system should place the biggest burden on those with the broadest shoulders, implying support for taxing the wealthiest rather than charities and the charitable sector.

She argues that this measure will undermine efforts to put more investment upstream in public health and primary care, forcing many charities to do even more fundraising to backfill the gap created by the national insurance contributions hike.

Mr. Snell argues that charities and organisations providing public services are facing significant increases in national insurance contributions, which will reduce their ability to support independent domestic violence advisers and sexual violence advocates. He cites specific examples from Stoke-on-Trent, such as Savana, Disability Solutions, North Staffs Mind, Changes, and the Dove Service, highlighting financial impacts ranging from £16,500 to £55,000. Mr. Snell emphasises that these organisations are filling a void in state provision and have substantial economic benefits for local communities.

Mr. Hoare intervenes to express concern about the potential impact on volunteers who support these organisations, suggesting that if the Government does not provide help, volunteers may lose motivation and stop supporting these charities.

The hon. Member acknowledges the concerns about the measure's impact but believes that the Treasury and Chancellor's analysis of the state of public finances is accurate, though he wishes to mitigate some aspects.

The hon. Member questions the right hon. Gentleman about a more sensible tax strategy and expresses concern over the hit to growth from changes to NICs.

The hon. Member challenges the right hon. Gentleman on his recognition of the connection between NHS and social care, asking why former PM Boris Johnson did not address it.

The hon. Member discusses the Schrödinger's care situation for providers who are both seen as private and commissioned solely by NHS, requiring immediate clarity from the Minister on funding.

Supports a fairer tax system where larger businesses and the wealthiest pay more taxes to fund NHS and public services. Criticises the Tory record on NHS investment, highlighting the lack of funding for hospital construction projects like Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow. Advocates for protecting small businesses and charities by increasing employment allowance to £10,500, benefiting 250,000 employers with no change for another 820,000. Emphasises the importance of public sector employees and commits to providing support for additional employer NIC costs.

The SNP amendments aim to protect Scottish healthcare, voluntary organisations, universities from devastating national insurance increases. The tax hike will lead to deep cuts in services, job losses, and financial strain on already fragile sectors. Labour's approach is out of touch with Scotland’s economic reality.

Intervened to question SNP’s stance on Scottish oil and gas, suggesting an inconsistency in their approach.

Supported Doogan's arguments by highlighting the impact of NICs increase on Northern Ireland’s health and social care, particularly in children's hospices. Emphasised that the measure will threaten essential services.

Mr. Slinger supports the amendment, arguing that it is necessary given the inheritance of a high tax burden and weak economic foundations from the previous government. He highlights measures to protect small businesses and charities while maintaining fiscal stability.

Mr. Adam opposes the national insurance rise, citing severe financial strain on health professionals including GPs, pharmacists, and optometrists due to an estimated £12,000 increase per pharmacy business. He warns of potential service reductions or closures in primary care and detrimental impacts on essential charities.

Emphasises the necessity of addressing inherited public financial challenges and service inadequacies. Criticises Conservative MPs for their denial of past mistakes, citing statistics on NHS waiting lists, crime reduction, and prison crises. Challenges Conservatives to propose alternative solutions while highlighting public support for fiscal measures.

Reminded Jim Allister to focus on the national insurance contributions debate.

Critiques the reduction of the national insurance threshold to £5,000 as excessively punitive for small businesses and the voluntary sector. Highlights potential job losses and financial burdens on sectors like hospitality, community services, and healthcare providers.

Grady supports the amendment, arguing that increasing national insurance contributions will ensure economic stability and fund essential public services. He criticises opposition parties for their unrealistic spending commitments without clear funding plans.

Robertson opposes the amendment, arguing that it will be devastating for health and social care. He highlights that key partners delivering health and social care are not exempted from national insurance contributions, resulting in additional financial burdens on hospices, pharmacies, GPs, and social care services.

Intervened to suggest that growing the economy is the best way to increase tax revenue, questioning whether the Labour Government’s proposals would actually achieve this.

Asked why the Government is raising taxes on GP surgeries rather than banks, highlighting the economic impact on healthcare services.

Questioned Dan Tomlinson about whether he believes these national insurance changes are pro-growth or anti-growth, seeking clarity on economic impact.

Expressed deep concerns over the proposed national insurance changes due to their real-world impacts on businesses, GP surgeries, community organisations, and care services in his constituency. He highlighted financial burdens on GP practices, social care providers, community organisations, early education and childcare sectors, and successful local businesses such as Rathfinny.

The Liberal Democrats argue that increasing national insurance will undermine public services across the UK. Care Forum Wales warns of a £150 million funding gap in social care due to increased costs, leading to potential closures of care homes and exacerbating hospital discharge issues. GP practices face significant financial pressure with projected increases in their national insurance bills, potentially cutting service days and impacting patient care. Charities will also suffer from this decision, placing considerable financial strain on essential services.

Despite acknowledging the inevitable vote outcome due to parliamentary arithmetic, Sammy Wilson emphasises that the economic evidence and forecasts indicate negative impacts on small employers, recruitment, real wages of low-paid workers, health service capacity, and overall economic growth. He argues that the measure will undermine NHS services and trust in politics while ignoring alternative funding sources like big banks or oil giants.

While not providing extensive argumentation, Nusrat Ghani manages the debate and calls for concise contributions from speakers to ensure the Minister has time to respond.

Swann argues that the increase in ENICs will put many community-based health services at risk, contradicting government goals of moving from hospital to community care. He highlights the need for multidisciplinary teams within GP practices and mentions the impact on Northern Ireland’s already underfunded healthcare system. Additionally, he emphasises the role of private providers in social care who often run small-scale family businesses.

Fenton-Glynn interjects to question Robin Swann's stance on addressing problems in the social care market and asks him about his previous advocacy for the Dilnot report recommendations.

Ghani briefly intervenes to ask Robin Swann to keep his contribution to a few minutes so that the Minister has time to respond to other Back Benchers.

Mohamed criticises the Government's approach to funding public services, arguing that it is not a responsible way to raise finances for investment. He suggests alternative measures such as a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million and closing corporation tax loopholes.

Supports the amendments but opposes excluding certain sectors. The changes will raise revenue needed to fix public finances, get public services back on their feet and restore economic stability. Independent contractors including primary care providers, social care providers, charities such as hospices and nurseries will not be supported with costs.

Opposes the Bill, stating it is a calamity for businesses. It will increase inflation, reduce living standards, and destroy jobs, particularly among young people. The Labour party's record shows managed decline compared to previous Conservative governance.