-
Mr Stafford questioned why parts of the NHS should not be exempt from national insurance contributions like other public employers. He did not specify a position on whether to support or oppose the bill but asked for clarity.
-
Mr Gale raised concerns about the allocation of funds, suggesting that people might prefer their taxed income spent generously on children's hospices rather than on deals like spending millions on the Chagos islands. He did not provide a clear position on supporting or opposing the bill.
-
Mr Davies supported Lords amendments 1B, 5B, 8B, and 21B. He argued that these amendments seek to address two serious consequences of the Bill: reducing health and social care services and affecting small businesses negatively. Mr Davies emphasised that the Government's rationale is flawed since they are taxing public services on which everyone relies.
-
Mr Wilson questioned the rationale for the Bill, highlighting that while NHS will be exempt from these changes, other health and social care services such as dental services, social care, etc., will suffer. He did not specify a position on supporting or opposing the bill.
-
Sir Edward Leigh stressed the importance of addressing the funding shortfall faced by St Barnabas Hospice, citing £300,000 annual losses and urging the Government to reconsider the national insurance hike's impact on palliative care.
-
Gareth Davies highlighted the inconsistency in the Government's funding announcement for hospices, noting that £100 million of capital funding will not address operational costs. He called for exemptions through Lords amendments 1B and 5B.
-
Daisy Cooper criticised the Government's lack of foresight in introducing national insurance hikes without considering their impact on healthcare providers. She advocated for exemption powers through Lords amendments 1B and 5B to protect community services integral to NHS functioning.
-
Sir Roger Gale underscored the devastating effects of increased national insurance on hospices, emphasising that it is essentially a tax on jobs critical for patient care. He pointed out the absence of Labour MPs during the debate as evidence of their disinterest.
-
Wilson agrees that services will be affected negatively and that businesses might cut back on staff, leading to a loss of national insurance contributions. He suggests this could become an own goal for the Government if they fail to raise revenue while causing economic pain.
-
Cooper supports the idea of derogations for health and social care providers, criticising the £24 billion fiscal drag as economically damaging. She suggests alternative measures such as a digital services tax on large online media companies to raise necessary revenue.
-
Mayhew argues that the Bill's proposals, particularly clauses 1 and 2, are damaging for healthcare providers who cannot diversify or raise prices. He cites the example of hospices facing additional costs and warns against funding state-assisted dying through taxing palliative care.
-
Stafford supports Lords amendments 1B and 5B, highlighting the financial strain on social care due to increased national insurance contributions. He criticises the Government for providing only capital spending instead of revenue support.
-
The amendment will have a net cost on the Exchequer and affect independent care providers, home care companies, pharmacies. The measure is contrary to the Government's policy of bringing healthcare closer to communities.
-
While acknowledging the concerns raised by Opposition Members, the government has put extra funding into public services like GPs and dentists. The employment allowance is being doubled to £10,500, meaning very small businesses will not pay any national insurance contributions when employing up to four people earning the national living wage.