National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2025-03-19

Expresses concern about the economic impact of national insurance contributions, questioning how much a 0.1% drop in GDP will cost the Government in tax implications.

Requests details on spending this year compared to the £22 billion black hole inherited, suggesting that the national insurance contributions rise has a greater economic impact than claimed by the Government.

Challenges the Minister on facts regarding the economy's condition when Labour won the election compared to now, indicating that the economy was growing under Labour before it started shrinking.

Requests further discussion time but is not given way by James Murray.

Raises concerns about the impact of national insurance contributions on GP surgeries, suggesting it will lead to reduced staff and service cuts despite additional NHS funding announced by the Government.

Points out that the employer NICs rise will cost Age UK £50,000 annually, questioning if it is possible to improve public services through taxing them.

Requests the release of an independent report commissioned by NHS England on future pharmacy funding before consultations finish, despite being told reports are a subject for Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care.

The Minister assures that the Government is providing significant funding for hospices, including £100 million for improvements and £26 million in revenue support. He defends the approach of supporting public sector employers through tax relief rather than directly covering additional national insurance contributions for charities like hospices.

Critiques the Government's approach, arguing that while funding is provided in one area, it is taken away through increased national insurance costs. Suggests this affects hospices and other sectors negatively.

Questions the Minister on why the funds given to hospices are for building improvements rather than operational expenses, which are hit by increased national insurance costs. Challenges the fairness of this approach.

Asks for reassurance that Southern Area Hospice will not face financial difficulties due to increased national insurance contributions and seeks direct support from the Government in addition to building funds.

Pressures the Minister to commit to funding the £4.9 million lost by children's hospices through increased NI costs on an annual basis, not just providing capital expenditure for one year.

Challenges the Minister's clarity on the distinction between funding provided for capital and operational expenses and requests that the Chancellor or Chief Secretary provide a clear explanation before the Bill returns to the House of Lords.

Questions why public sector employees are exempt from increased national insurance contributions while those in hospices and end-of-life care, which also provide essential services, are not. Asks how this can be justified.

Expresses concern over the uncertainty facing primary care providers regarding compensation for increased national insurance contributions, urging the Minister to clarify their position before the start of the tax year.

Proposes switching £4 million or £5 million from the capital budget to the revenue budget to help vulnerable organisations such as hospices.

Questions how charities will cope with further NICs, expecting a reduction in services and support due to increased tax burden.

Supports Lords amendments that seek to exempt care providers, NHS GP practices, charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million, and small businesses from the national insurance rate rise. Highlights potential adverse impacts on essential services provided by these entities.

Asks if the amendments will be reversed, emphasising the need for spending cuts to support such changes.

Points out that the national insurance rise impacts local businesses and education negatively, affecting their ability to take on apprentices.

Ms Blake questions Gareth Davies about his stance on reversing the changes to National Insurance, noting that he has not been clear on whether he would reverse them. She also asks for clarification regarding GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund.

Sir Gavin criticises the Minister for having to defend indefensible policies, using a comparison with Matt Hancock's zeal in defence of similar issues. He mentions that businesses in his constituency are cutting pay increases due to these tax rises and asserts that taxpayers will ultimately bear the burden.

Sir Gale argues that people contributing generously to charitable causes such as children’s hospices face a double taxation, first through their employment taxes and then again on donations made after tax. He considers this to be highly unfair.

Mr Roca does not contribute any new substantial arguments or statistics in the provided text.

Mr Martin points out that businesses such as Basil’s café in his constituency are having to raise prices due to NIC rises and asks if this could contribute to a rise in inflation figures.

Questioned the logic of splitting NICs between employees and employers instead of a simultaneous increase, arguing it introduces unnecessary complexity.

Asked how the additional tax on early years care aligns with productivity and growth goals. Highlighted the strain this puts on nurseries due to strict rules about ratios and space.

Questioned Dr Sandher's opposition to all amendments, suggesting he should support some individual exemptions.

Asked about the perverse incentives in removing a jobs tax from children’s hospices. Challenged the argument that this would weaken the tax system overall.

Supported all 21 Lords amendments as they aim to create a fairer society, offering exemptions for health and care providers, small charities, transport providers, children with special educational needs and disabilities, and small businesses. Emphasised the self-defeating nature of taxing those who prevent people from needing NHS services.

Cited specific examples in his constituency affected by the Bill such as hospices and social care providers, expressing concern about the impact on core NHS services.

Illustrated the impact of increased NICs on Quantum Care in Hertfordshire, noting that the costs will rise by £1.7 million, affecting council contracts and social services.

The Lords amendments are necessary to support valuable public services like GP surgeries, dental practices, pharmacies, hospices and childcare settings. The Government's decision will harm vulnerable people and businesses that rely on local government funding.

The Lords amendments are crucial to protect the rights of children with special educational needs and disabilities who depend on school transport. Rejecting these amendments will compromise their education opportunities and cause financial strain on local councils.

The threats against businesses, charities, and hospices due to increased NICs have come true as predicted by the SNP and others. The British Chambers of Commerce reports a 'powder keg' of costs for firms leading to potential staff layoffs.

The Government should use some of the £9 billion given away to Mauritius to support social care and charities instead of imposing this jobs tax on vulnerable businesses and services.

Labour broke its promise not to raise national insurance. The amendments tabled by Labour colleagues in the Lords are against protecting small family businesses, hospices, GPs, care providers, and charities. The Government sees unintended consequences that harm vulnerable communities. There is a lack of understanding from Labour about how local communities rely on these organisations.

It is perverse that the Government exempts the health service but taxes doctors, dentists, hospices and children's hospices, which are part of the same health system. Labour's economic policies have harsh consequences on vulnerable communities.

Labour Members continue to blame their economic inheritance without understanding how communities rely on charities and other organisations for support. The £20,000 a year cost for GP practices is unsustainable, impacting staff hours and patient care.

The national insurance changes will have devastating impacts on essential services in Lewes. GP surgeries cannot pass costs onto patients, leading to fewer face-to-face consultations and longer waiting times. Amendments from the Liberal Democrats aim to protect GP practices, dentists, pharmacists, care providers, and other essential health services.

Social care providers in Epsom and Ewell face immense strain due to rising costs. Increasing national insurance will force vulnerable individuals into hospitals, exacerbating NHS pressures. Care providers like Strada Care are on the brink of collapse without financial support.

The £615 cost per person reported to care providers in Taunton and Wellington will lead to real suffering for constituents, impacting their ability to pay for essential care services. These changes are shockingly unacceptable.

In my constituency, nurseries are facing an impossible squeeze due to rising national insurance contributions and increased statutory wage costs. The National Day Nurseries Association warns that average nursery will see £47,000 in additional costs not covered by the Government’s funding increase, potentially forcing them to close. This affects working parents already struggling with cost of living increases. If schools are exempt from this tax hike, nurseries should be too.

The Government's policy undermines essential services and forces more people towards them by stripping away other forms of support like personal independence payment cuts. The government is giving with one hand while taking much more with the other.

The Bill breaks manifesto promises, harms local business and limits growth in my constituency. These changes will hit working people hardest despite Chancellor’s claim to shield them from impacts. The OBR has stated that additional payroll costs are passed through into lower wages.

The Bill harms local business, negatively impacts constituents, and limits growth in Chester South and Eddisbury. The NIC increase will mean lower wages, higher unemployment, increased costs for businesses resulting in higher prices in shops.

Exempting hospices from this damaging increase in employer national insurance contributions is the right thing to do. The financial implications for services and staff will be hugely damaging, making it hard to recruit staff.

Specialist transport for children with special educational needs is vital in rural areas where there are no public transport alternatives. The amendment seeks exemptions for hospices, social care providers and GPs from the NIC rise.

The Liberal Democrats call on Government to exempt social care providers and GPs from the employer national insurance tax rise. The OBR estimates this hike will bring in £10 billion a year rather than the £25 billion estimated by the Government.

The NIC increase is expected to cost each GP practice an estimated £20,000 a year. The national insurance rise will mean that the uplift in the GP contract is far smaller than it appears because a proportion will need to be returned directly to the Treasury.

Ms Medi spoke against the national insurance contributions hike, highlighting its disproportionate effect on Welsh micro-businesses. She cited that nearly 95% of businesses in Wales are micro-sized and would be adversely impacted by a £29,000 annual cost increase for employers of 40 people on average salaries. The OBR forecasts show that 76% of the cost will be passed onto workers through higher prices or lower pay rises.

Ms Dyke argued for Lords amendments to protect health and social care providers from national insurance increases, noting that early years provider Acorn Day Nursery in her constituency could be forced out of business due to the hike. She also highlighted concerns from hospice and GP surgery providers, as well as community pharmacies at risk of closure, potentially leading to a reduction in vital frontline services.