PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill - 3 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The reasoned amendment in the name of Mel Stride has been selected.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In her Budget statement on 30 October, the Chancellor set out the difficult decisions that we as a Government have been prepared to make on welfare, spending and tax. Those decisions were not just difficult but necessary, given the fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement that had become hallmarks of the previous Government. We inherited a mess, so those decisions were needed to fix the public finances, fund the NHS and other public services and deliver economic stability. We have been determined to take those decisions while protecting working people. That is why our Budget made no changes to income tax, the rate of VAT, or the amount of national insurance that working people pay. As a result of our Budget, people will not see a penny more tax on their payslips.

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, with the best brains in the Treasury on hand, he does not understand that it is a moot point whether someone has a higher national insurance contribution in their payslip, or whether their wages are suppressed and the job that they were going for is not there anymore, because the employer cannot afford to increase their payroll due to this national insurance increase?

We recognise that we are asking businesses to contribute more, and that this will have impacts, but it will be up to individual businesses to decide how to respond to these changes. The one thing that we know for certain is that if we had chosen a different path—if we had followed the previous Government and increased income tax or national insurance—that would have led to a tax on people’s payslips. It would have led to the amount of money in people’s pockets going down, which would have broken our manifesto promise.

I apologise for intervening so early in the debate, but a number of my small businesses, charities and voluntary sector organisations have raised concerns and asked for clarity. Can the Minister outline what safety nets and other measures for support are available to small businesses, charities and voluntary sector organisations?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will get to the detail of the Bill in a moment, but I can briefly reassure him that the Bill doubles the employment allowance, which will go from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that small businesses and charities are protected; they can employ up to four people on the national living wage without paying a penny in national insurance. In the context of the tough decisions that we had to take in this Bill, that is important protection for small businesses and charities.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in the UK, the definition of a small business is one that employs fewer than 50 employees and has an annual turnover of less than £10 million? Thanks to his changes and political choices, thousands of small businesses across the country will face the decision of whether to keep staff on or lay them off.

We know that the tough decision that we have had to take will have impacts—we have been up front with people about that—but we also know that over half of all employers will pay no more or less national insurance than they did before. We acknowledge that this decision will have an impact, but we believe that it is the right decision. I will explain why that is.

It is clear that the Government are working hard to get this right, but may I press the Minister on the point about the employment allowance? What he says about doubling the threshold is welcome, particularly when it comes to childcare provision, and we all want an expansion of childcare places. He will be aware that the employment allowance doubling that he is talking about will apply to state-provided childcare places, but not to private and co-operative nurseries. Some 85% of places are in private and co-operative nurseries, so will he look at extending the employment allowance that he is giving to state nurseries to private and co-operative nurseries, so we can support the expansion of childcare?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but eligibility for the employment allowance is not changing. It is the same as it was before, and we are maintaining that provision. On protecting small businesses and charities, the crucial thing for us is the doubling of the employment allowance. In individual cases, I would recommend that organisations get the right advice, but the eligibility criteria for the employment allowance will not change as a result of the Bill.

Will the Minister give way?

I will, one more time, and then I will make progress.

Is not the fact of the matter, despite what the Chancellor has said, that businesses have been abandoned? There is no safety net for them. To use the words of the Chancellor,

“What we have done with the increase in employer national insurance is leave it to the business to work out”.

Businesses are bearing the brunt of this, and it is really too bad. As far as the Chancellor is concerned, they will have to grin and bear it.

I am sorry, but there are tough decisions that we have to take, and there are difficult decisions that businesses will have to take. The only people to have abandoned businesses were the Conservatives when they were in government. They abandoned any pretence of economic stability, fiscal responsibility, and supporting businesses to invest and grow. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government.

I will make some progress, and take more interventions shortly. For me, keeping the promises on income tax, employee national insurance and VAT is crucial, but making those decisions and needing to get our country back on track has meant that other tough decisions in the tax system have been necessary. That is why, at the Budget, we took the decision to increase national insurance contributions from employers, while, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), increasing protections for small businesses and charities. It is those measures that the Bill seeks to introduce.

I will set out the detail of how the Bill seeks to achieve that. First, it increases the main rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%. It decreases the secondary threshold for employers—the threshold above which employers begin to pay employer national insurance contributions on their employees’ salary—from £9,100 to £5,000. At the same time, as I have mentioned to hon. Members, the Bill increases the protection for small businesses by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That increase in the employment allowance, alongside the removal of the £100,000 eligibility threshold, means that all eligible businesses will be able to employ four full-time workers on the national living wage without paying any national insurance contributions.

Is the Minister aware of the complete disaster this will cause for Scottish hospitality businesses? We do not have business rates relief, as businesses do in England Wales. We have a very large number of young people in the hospitality sector. For example, for someone working part-time for 25 hours a week on the minimum wage, their salary is £15,912, and the national insurance has just gone up by 74%. This is wiping out the hospitality industry in Scotland.

I recognise that the decision we are taking will have impacts, and in some cases it will mean that employers have to take difficult decisions. We are, however, reforming business rates to help retail, hospitality and leisure on the high street, so I would suggest that the hon. Member speaks to the Scottish Government about their doing something to support businesses in the same way; I cannot speak on their behalf.

Taken together, the measures, should the Bill pass, will mean that 865,000 employers pay no national insurance at all next year, with over 1 million—more than a half of all employers—paying the same or less than they did previously. I have been clear, however, that I recognise that there will be impacts on some employers as a result of the changes. While many small businesses and charities will be protected through the employment allowance increase, others will have to contribute more.

The Minister talks about protecting businesses or charities, but hospices, for example, employ many more than four people. I cannot think of one hospice that does not employ more than four people. How will they be protected?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That will depend on the exact set-up of the hospice, but typically hospices are independent charities, so they will be able to use the employment allowance against their national insurance contributions liability. They will also be able to access the other tax reliefs in the system that benefit charities, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief, which we have maintained in the Budget. We have taken the decision to maintain—

Members will have to wait a second so that I can answer this question.

We will maintain the charitable reliefs in the system, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief. However, it is important to recognise that the decisions we have taken overall mean that over half of all employers will not pay any more or will pay the same national insurance as they did before. Their national insurance bill will be the same or less than it would have been otherwise.

Many of us in this House appreciate the work that my hon. Friend’s team are doing to unpick the mess we inherited, but one thing that has been pointed out is the need for better targeting. I have been talking to social enterprises and small businesses in my constituency. Social enterprises often do things that charities may do, but are considered as small businesses, although they do not get the same tax reliefs as charities. They also provide critical services in my constituency and in constituencies around the country. Is there not a better way to target micro-businesses and social enterprises to enable them to better manage what is quite a tough Budget for some of them?

We recognise that tough decisions had to be taken throughout this Budget, but that is exactly why we have balanced the difficult decisions on the rate of national insurance and the decrease in the secondary threshold with the increase of the employment allowance, which helps small businesses and charities. There is no way that we can get through the measures announced in the Budget, and say that there will not be any difficult decisions for organisations or businesses to have to take. We are being up front about this. It is a tough decision for the Government to have to take, and it will mean that businesses must take difficult decisions as well. However, it is essential that we do this to fix the public finances, get our public services back on their feet and restore the economic stability that was squandered by the Conservative party.

How does it help morale and positivity among small businesses, which will be vital to economic growth, if some of them are going to see their salary bills double? An employer in my constituency—not quite a small business, but a medium-sized business—is facing crippling increases in the salary bill. How will it help growth if those companies go to the wall and we lose jobs?

The hon. Member focuses on the national insurance contributions changes, which is rightly the focus of this Bill, but I urge her to look at that in the context of everything else the Government are doing, not least the employment allowance doubling that I have mentioned. There is also our decision to freeze the small business rates multiplier as it applies in England, our decision to introduce permanently lower retail hospitality and leisure rates for businesses on the high street in 2026-27, and the decision in our corporation tax road map to maintain the small profits rate and other allowances from which small businesses can benefit. I urge her to understand that what we are doing on national insurance is taking a tough decision to fix the public finances, while at the same time providing the stability that businesses need to invest and grow, and that is the way to move our country forward.

Does the Minister agree that many people who want to work have struggled to do so because of poor health? They are unable to get access to a doctor, a hospital appointment or a dentist appointment—to a whole range of appointments—and as a consequence they have been forced out of work when they want to be in work, earn a living and get dignity from work. With the changes that the Government are bringing forward, we will see investment in our NHS and our public services that will help people to get the appointments they need to return to work. Does he agree that this investment is much needed and a good thing for our economy?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right. He points out why we are taking these difficult decisions, and why it is so important to fund public services and fix the public finances. Healthy businesses need a healthy NHS, healthy businesses need a healthy workforce and healthy businesses need public services to be functioning so that they can maintain their investment and grow the economy. I am sure that my hon. Friend, and other Members, will have seen the Government’s “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which sets out the barriers that ill health puts in the way of people being economically active. We are determined to challenge that and to help people who are able to get back into, and stay in, work. That will be a mission of this Government.

I will make a bit of progress; I have been generous in giving way.

The choice that we have taken is difficult; it is not one that we have taken lightly. As I have fully acknowledged in the Chamber, the impacts of this measure will be felt beyond businesses, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has acknowledged. Let me put the decision in context and say what we could have done instead. We could have reversed the previous Government’s cuts to employee national insurance. Those cuts were simply not honest because they were based on a forecast that the OBR said would have been “materially different” if the true extent of the last Government’s cover-up had been known. We made a commitment to not increase the taxes that working people pay, and we have delivered on that promise and made a different choice.

I will give way; I am being too generous I think.

The manifesto said that Labour would not increase rates of national insurance contributions. The Minister is perfectly entitled to use the argument, “We never realised that it was this bad, so we have had to change what we said we would do”, but to pretend that Labour has not resiled on its manifesto promise is pure sophistry.

In fact, it is both things: it is true that we have kept to our manifesto pledge of protecting working people by not increasing income tax, the national insurance that working people pay or VAT; at the same time, the situation is far worse than we thought it would be when we won the general election, with the £22 billion black hole and the fact that the OBR said that its forecast would have been “materially different” in March, had it known the true extent of the previous Government’s cover-up. Those are facts that the OBR put out there and from which we cannot hide.

I believe the Minister is misleading the House—[Interruption.] Inadvertently. The OBR did not say the words “cover-up” so will he correct the record?

I said that the OBR said that its forecast would have been “materially different” had it known what the previous Government did not share with it at the time of its March forecast. I have been absolutely clear, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the OBR forecast as it might be illuminating—

No, I will not give way again. It might be illuminating for him to read the OBR forecast and understand what it says about the previous Government’s relationship with it, how much information was not shared, and how that impacted on its forecast going into the election.

I will make some progress as I want to explain why we are taking this tough decision, and why it is so important that we take this decision now, as set out by the Chancellor in the Budget. Revenue raised by measures in the Bill will play a critical role in enabling the Government to fix the public finances, restore economic stability in a fiscally responsible way, and get the NHS back on its feet.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make some progress.

We know how crucial economic stability is for businesses taking investment decisions, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), we know how crucial it is for businesses to have a healthy NHS. As a result of measures in the Bill, as well as wider measures announced in the Budget, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion increase in resource spending to deliver 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. That is urgently needed to get the NHS back on its feet. The increase in funding will be done within our tough fiscal rules—new rules that will bring an end to borrowing for day-to-day spending, something that the previous Government never achieved or even aimed for.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the NHS, and I believe the NHS and hospital trusts will receive an exemption to the increase in national insurance contributions. Given his clear passion for the NHS, will he look again at the impact that his rise in national insurance contributions will have on air ambulances? Under the current proposals air ambulances, like hospices, will face a huge increase in their costs.

The way that we are approaching the reimbursement of employer national insurance costs for Departments and public sector employees is similar to what the previous Government did with the health and social care levy. It means that money goes to Departments, local governments, and public sector employees directly to help compensate for the increase in employer national insurance. For other people who are paying employer national insurance, if they have a contract with the public sector they are treated as contractors or private organisations. If they have concerns about their cost base they should talk to their sponsoring Department, the NHS, or whoever they have a contract with, so that those considerations can be taken into account in the round. It was the same for adult social care, and it is the same for other organisations that are funded through the public sector.

Let me pick up on the point about local authorities and public services. I pressed the Minister on that this morning during Treasury questions, and I fear he did not give me a clear answer. Richmond council, my local authority, delivers children’s services through an arm’s length body called Achieving for Children. As a result of these measures, with all the employees who deliver services for vulnerable children in Richmond upon Thames, it faces a bill of £588,000 in employer’s national insurance. Will the Minister assure local authorities up and down the country that operate similar models for delivering services that these arm’s length bodies will be exempt from the national insurance rise? Otherwise he will be damaging the very public services that he claims to be investing in today.

We are protecting public services by providing relief directly to Departments and other public sector employers. Third parties, private organisations, or those who have a contract with the public sector are dealt with differently and they should approach their local council, or whoever is sponsoring them, to talk about their funding arrangements. I might draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that local government financing is increasing by 3.2% next year as a result of decisions that this Government have taken. I expect she would probably support that increase in funding, but sadly she does not have the guts to support what we need to do to raise the money in the first place.

On the £22.6 billion for the NHS, or the figure just mentioned for local government, have the Minister or his officials calculated what the numbers would be, net of the national insurance cost? Those bodies— the national health service and local government—carry on with exactly the same services as before, but now face extra bills for national insurance contributions. Have they done the maths?

In the statistics put out by the Government at the time of the Budget, a specific amount is earmarked directly for Departments and public sector employers. That amount is effectively netted off against the amount that will be available for net spending in public services. For other organisations, such as third parties that contract with the NHS, there should be a conversation between the person under the contract and the contracting organisation to consider pressures in the round. As I said, this is in the context of, for example, the local government budget going up by 3.2% next year, and a huge amount of extra investment in the NHS, with £600 million going to local authorities in England to help deal with social care pressures. That is the context of the decisions that we had to take and pressures in the round.

I thank the Minister for giving way again. What about GP surgeries?

GP funding for 2025-26 will be confirmed by the Department for Health and Social Care in the usual way as part of the GP contracting process, and it will consider all the pressures on GPs in the round.

I will make some progress, because the points we have made are clear. It is important for me to look also at what the Opposition might do, given the important vote today on these tax changes, which are necessary to raise funding for the NHS and other public services. I would like to think that the Opposition might join us today, back our plans to provide extra funding for the NHS and support this Bill to help pay for it. It seems though, from an article in The Sunday Times in the name of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), that that may not be the case. In that piece, he wrote that the Conservatives apparently

“want to provide further funding for the NHS.”

Sadly, they refuse to take the tough decisions to pay for it.

I note that in that article, the shadow Chancellor rehashed the discredited pledge from the recent Conservative manifesto to make £12 billion of welfare savings, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies politely described at the time as being “difficult in the extreme.” Perhaps he missed the admission from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), during the election campaign that those welfare cuts were in fact not new, and the money had already been spent. Either way, it is hard to fathom why the new shadow Chancellor would rest his first intervention on a pledge from a manifesto that led to his party losing nearly 250 seats. It only serves to underscore the fact that the Conservatives are getting further and further away from being a credible Opposition by the day.

We recognise that the decision to increase employer’s national insurance will have impacts. Although measures in this Bill will help to protect small businesses and charities, other measures mean that larger businesses and organisations will have difficult decisions to take. Let me be clear, however: the Budget was a one-off and a once-in-a-generation event. The difficult decisions we took meant that we were able to wipe the slate clean of the previous Government’s fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement. Public services now need to live within their means and the means we have set them for the rest of this Parliament. The Budget delivered stability and fiscal responsibility, meaning that our focus can now be resolutely on boosting investment and growing the economy. That fiscal responsibility is possible only when we take tough decisions. This Bill makes it clear that this Government will not shy away from tough decisions and that we will do what is right in the circumstances we face. I commend it to the House.

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill because it breaks the manifesto commitment of the Labour Party not to increase National Insurance; and will lead to lower growth, lower wages for working people, fewer jobs and the closure of businesses.

Today we turn to the latest chapter in this Government’s book of economic incompetence, which is their choice to increase employers’ national insurance contributions—Labour’s job tax on workers across the UK. Today’s measures are the major reason that the public’s immediate reaction to the Budget was negative, with YouGov polling the day after the Budget showing that nearly twice as many people thought it would leave the UK worse off than thought it would be better off. When it came to judging each of the many measures in the Budget in turn, today’s proposal to increase national insurance was rated the second worst decision of all in the Budget, just behind hiking bus fares by 50%. Back in October, 47% of the public thought Labour’s job tax was the wrong thing to do, but as employers have spelled out the impact of Labour’s job tax, the public’s view has soured further. In polling last Monday, those saying that this measure is wrong have increased from 47% to 57%. The public know that the Labour Chancellor has got this choice wrong.

The shadow Minister is an astute man, and he has picked up on some of the indices of concern. One of those is the economic confidence index, which in October was -52. In November, it was -65. That is the second lowest figure on record since the pandemic in 2020. If we had an eminent economist running the Treasury, they would be able to see that this is a bad idea for businesses and the country.

Obviously it would be useful to have people with business experience in the Cabinet, if they are going to levy taxes on business. Sadly, the Government do not have that. My hon. Friend’s point about business confidence and the reaction from businesses goes to what the Minister was trying to say in his summing up about what the Conservative party would do. The way we raise more taxes is by enhancing business confidence, so that they invest, grow and make profits that can be taxed. This Budget has done precisely the opposite. Each and every day since the Budget, confidence in the financial competence of this Labour Government has been ebbing away. Less than one in four of the public now believe that this Government are handling the economy well.

The hon. Gentleman appears keen on polling. Can he talk us through the polling for Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s Budget?

To be fair, my former colleague did not last quite as long as the lettuce, and the public made their judgment clear on that and many other issues at the general election. The hon. Gentleman’s point is fair, but it is not particularly relevant to the decisions he will be asked to vote on today. Hospices in his constituency will know how he votes. GPs in his constituency will know how he votes. Charities in his constituency will know how he votes. I will be interested to see whether he votes with his conscience or with the party line.

Less than one in four of the public now believe that the Government are handling the economy well. It is not just the public who have lost faith in the economic competence of His Majesty’s Treasury; it is the Prime Minister himself, who apparently on Thursday will ditch the ambition for the United Kingdom to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7, removing at a stroke one of the key planks of Labour’s economic plans. The Bill will add to that lack of faith in this Labour Government, because this measure to raise national insurance contributions directly contradicts Labour’s election promise not to increase taxes on working people.

In the election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the entire Labour Treasury team, including the Minister, repeated the phrase from their manifesto, which stated:

“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.”

Yet today, with the election behind them, increasing taxes on working people is exactly what Labour is proposing to do.

The shadow Minister is shaking his head.

You’re the shadow Minister.

I am terribly sorry—the Minister. He shakes his head and says that it is not true. Let me turn to one of his favourite independent economic groups, the Resolution Foundation, whose analyst James Smith said, “Even if it”—the employers national insurance change—

“doesn’t show up in pay packets from day one, it will eventually feed through to lower wages…This is definitely is a tax on working people, let’s be very clear about that.”

It is a little wearisome to listen to the Opposition talk about taxes on working people. We have the highest income taxes since world war two because they did not increase the thresholds, and in 2011 VAT went up to 20%, which was a massive tax on working people. I would like to hear what the shadow Minister has to say about that.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Conservative record. Shall I talk to him about our record on national insurance? In 2010, when Labour was last in office, it broke the economy and left a note saying that there was no money left. We did have to increase national insurance rates—but not by as much as is proposed today. Thereafter, we increased national insurance thresholds with inflation; these proposals do not do that. We introduced the employment allowance, which admittedly the Government are increasing. We then introduced national insurance reliefs for young workers. We increased national insurance income thresholds in 2022, 2023 and 2024. That is the Conservative record. We do not believe in the jobs tax: we do not think it helps growth, and we do not think that it will increase taxation.

I will make a bit more progress and then give way to my right hon. Friend.

If the Minister does not like the Resolution Foundation’s judgment on this tax, he should just listen to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:

“Simple economic theory suggests that the incidence of employer NICs and employee NICs should be the same, at least in the long run. It is likely that the long-run incidence of both employer and employee NICs is predominantly on employees”.

The measures in the Bill represent by far the largest part of the tax grab in the October Budget. The Treasury Red Book assesses that these measures will raise £23.7 billion in the next financial year, rising to £25.7 billion, but the Minister knows that behavioural changes means that they will actually raise substantially less; the IFS estimates about £16 billion.

I note that in the Red Book there were three opportunities for this jobs tax to be referred to as “Delivering on our Promises”. There is:

“Delivering on our Promises—New Policy to Close the Tax Gap”,

“Delivering on our Promises—Collecting Tax That is Due”

and even the catch-all:

“Delivering on our Promises—Other Manifesto Tax Commitments”,

but the increase in national insurance contributions cannot be included in any of those, because Labour politicians hid their intentions from the British voters at the election.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the history of the Tory party on national insurance. Can he tell us why he and his party voted for the health and social care levy, which put up national insurance for employees not so long ago?

That is a very odd question when the Minister himself has said that the objective today is to provide more money for the health service. I guess I will think about what the hon. Gentleman has asked.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will be very happy to give way, but I will make some progress first.

If we take the Government at their word that their intention is to raise funds for public services, this measure is an inefficient way to do so. Under the provisions of the 1992 Acts on social security provision, only a proportion of the moneys raised by this form of taxation will be allocated to public services; the vast majority is essentially hypothecated to the national insurance fund. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the moneys raised by the Bill will actually be allocated to the national health service? Will he also advise us of why the Chancellor chose this particular tax, which, uniquely, will burden the economy with far more in taxes levied than will actually end up going to support public services?

Employers large and small across the United Kingdom have been pleading with the Government to reverse this measure, letting them know about the impact it will have on jobs and on wages; the particularly harsh impact it will have on female workers and on young people starting out in their careers; the vulnerability of our hard-pressed hospitality businesses and high street retailers; or the pre-Christmas pleas of our charities, hospices and GPs about the way their contribution to public services has been completely ignored. Has the Minister been listening to the voices of people who actually have experience of running a business, creating jobs or delivering public services, who are telling him about the negative impact the Bill will have on jobs and pay, and even on their own viability, or has he been turning a deaf ear?

Is it not the biggest slap in the face for people listening to this that when Labour uses “working people”, it cannot define that term? Pub landlords and people working in charities are by definition working people—they are of working age and earn a living—and they will now be hit by this tax, which will have such a detrimental impact on their livelihoods. Is that not a disgrace?

I have been listening to questions from Members who believe that this is “not a tax on working people” asking for exemptions from it. When we hear that these taxes are being levied on hospices, charities, GPs and small businesses, we cannot help but believe that Labour thinks that people work only when they work for the Government. The truth of the matter is that working people work in many institutions across the country—in small businesses, large businesses and in the third sector—as well as for the Government. This Government are taxing working people.

I think sometimes, listening to the Opposition, it is as if that money goes into a complete black hole. Those billions are not just going to go into public services like health, education and social housing; we are also putting that money into people’s pockets—into the pockets of nurses, doctors, engineers and builders—who will then spend their money in those businesses. It is called the multiplier effect. That money will go back into our economy, rebuild our public services, which the Conservatives destroyed, and go into the pockets of people through the economy. What’s not to like?

The hon. Gentleman asks, “What’s not to like?”, but just a few minutes ago he was saying what he did not like in the Bill. He said he wanted exemptions that the Minister was not prepared to give him; I think his dispute is not with me, but with his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

The British Retail Consortium—another section of the economy—wrote to the Chancellor detailing the costs of the measures to retailers: £0.57 billion from the rate increase and £1.76 billion for the reduction in the national insurance contributions threshold. It spelled out the consequences:

“For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timetable. The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level. This will impact high streets and customers right across the country.

I would just like the hon. Gentleman to apologise for the fact that all the things he has just outlined are the impact of his Government’s kamikaze Budget in 2022.

Since the hon. Lady is reviewing history, she should look at the Bank of England review by Bernanke, commissioned under the last Government, which looked at the impact on interest rates in the UK compared with other countries and included that period. She will see that the real impact of those changes on interest rates was no different from any other year. The UK stayed in exactly the same place every year. There is a difference between facts and reality and what the Labour party thinks is history.

Will the hon. Member give way?

No, I am drawing my speech to a close, because plenty of people wish to speak.

UKHospitality is also concerned. It estimates that our pubs, clubs, hotels and restaurants will have to stump up £1 billion more because of the Bill. It points out that for a typical staff member aged 21 or over earning the national living wage and working 38 hours a week, the jobs tax will increase by 53.9%, from £1,863 to £2,869. Does the Minister honestly think that that will not mean job cuts in the hospitality sector?

The Government claim to have shielded the public sector from the jobs tax, but the reality is murkier. Many of our GPs will have to stump up more money, and our hospices and charities will have to find more money. As we approach the Christmas season, will the Minister give some hope to our charities, voluntary groups, GPs and hospices, and say that they, too, will be exempt from Labour’s jobs tax?

The Labour party in government is stumbling badly. I know from my own experience that no amount of resets will inspire confidence, and certainly not when a Prime Minister is forced into a reset within five months of taking office. The Labour party in government is also getting a reputation for a series of cruel policies motivated by socialism based on hate. The removal of winter fuel payments for the elderly was cruel. The family farm tax, penalising British farmers who have toiled in our fields for generations, was cruel. Today’s jobs tax, attacking businesses, charities, GPs, hospices and employment opportunities and growth is cruel, too. I urge all Members of this House to support our amendment.

For too long, this country has suffered from irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal management from Conservatives, saddling working people with the bill for their broken promises, incompetence and chaotic approach to governing. They hiked taxes for working people to record rates and left behind a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Then, to add insult to injury, the Conservatives spend their first few months in opposition washing their hands of 14 years of failure in power. That changed on 30 October when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a historic Budget, which led to this Bill. The Budget delivers the swift action needed to repair the immediate fiscal crisis and a long-term plan to repair our public finances, while also laying the foundations for a decade of national renewal.

We heard a lot from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and no doubt we will hear much from Opposition Members, about the Bill. But really, the gist of their argument is that they want all the benefits of the Budget, but have no idea how to pay for it. Boris Johnson may no longer be the leader of the Conservative party, but his belief in cakeism lives on. On cake, they are pro having it and pro eating it.

The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) attempted at first to wean the party off its cakeism addiction. Running in the first leadership context, he told his party not to believe in

“comforting fairytales that might make us feel better in the moment, but will leave our children worse off tomorrow”.

But under his leadership, the Conservatives once again succumbed to the fairytale of cakeism. That is why they lost the general election. The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire spoke of polls, but he will remember that they lost an election just a few months ago because they could no longer handle the challenges of the world as it is. They ducked the hard choices and, in opposition, they continue to duck them and to drift away from reality.

Back in the real world, let me remind the House what this Government are delivering, funded in large part by the Bill. They are delivering £25.6 billion in increased NHS funding, ensuring that our health service can meet rising demand and creating 40,000 more elective appointments every week. They are delivering more teachers, and investing £1 billion in special educational needs provision. They are investing billions in surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners. There is a further £1.5 billion to rebuild crumbling schools and ensure that every child learns in a safe environment. Those are investments that Conservative Members must surely support.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the impact of this measure is hitting the most vulnerable businesses and the most vulnerable charities throughout the United Kingdom? Surely a much better way of raising the money—which I can understand is needed—would be to raise corporation tax, or to increase taxes on, for instance, social media or the very largest companies.

The Bill, and the Budget, protect the smallest businesses, as the Minister has already explained. It is disappointing to hear the hon. Member sharing the Conservative party’s cakeism. Opposition Members must surely support the investments that the Bill will deliver, but if they oppose the Bill, how do they propose to fund them? Turning up at the supermarket with a long shopping list but no means to pay does not work in real life, and it does not work in government either.

The Conservatives have clearly learnt nothing from their kamikaze mini-Budget of 2022. Perhaps they believe that cakeism has just not been tried properly. This Government, by contrast, have taken the tough but fair decisions to protect working people, invest in our NHS and rebuild our public services. For too long the burden of tax has fallen on working people, but under this Government, larger businesses and the richest will pay a little more in tax to help fund the NHS and other public services on which working people rely. Where the Conservatives would either cut public services or pick the pockets of working people, this Government are asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more to help repair our broken public services—broken over the last 14 years. This Bill will help to deliver on the priorities of my constituents in Basingstoke, who will be able to see a doctor when they need one, and schools will be able to deliver the best—

Will the hon. Member reassure the GPs in my constituency, in Harston, Comberton, the Eversdens, Melbourn and Queen Edith’s, who have sought reassurances that the Government do not intend to threaten the viability of thousands of NHS general practices through these charges?

I am not sure that it is for me to give reassurances—it is probably for Ministers to do that—but what I can do is repeat what the Minister said earlier: the Government will bring forward the settlement for GPs in the usual way.

Part of the biggest problem that I have with the way this is being done, looking at the NHS as a whole, is that while at the front door of primary care the raising of national insurance contributions means that GPs do not want to recruit, at the back door social care is also being hit by the increase. It is all very well protecting the centre—the hospitals—but the biggest problem is system-wide, in that both the back door and the front door are jammed shut. How will the Bill resolve that? This is the practicality that the Labour party must explain to the health services, because they are asking the same question and it is going unanswered.

Both the back door and the front door of the NHS have been broken over the last 14 years, so we will take no lectures from the Conservatives about the state of the NHS or the impact of policies.

The protection of small business is also built into the Bill. The increase in the employment allowance to £10,500—as the Minister said—and the expansion to all employers mean that 250,000 employers will pay less national insurance, and that 820,000 employers will see no difference in their national insurance bills. That will ensure that these changes fall only on the businesses with the broadest shoulders. This Government continue to champion entrepreneurship and wealth creation, boosting public investment by more than £100 billion over this Parliament.

My constituency has a higher proportion of business owners, entrepreneurs, and high-growth enterprises and start-ups than many others. One of them wrote to me this week to say that they will cut their operations, and that the Budget has crashed any incentive or possibility for businesses to grow. Does the hon. Member agree that this Bill does not protect businesses or the workers they employ, and does not leave any hope for economic growth?

I take it that the hon. Lady must oppose the large investment in public services that the Government are proposing, and that she opposes the Government’s industrial strategy, which is one of the ways we will grow the economy. I remind Opposition Members that workers in small and large businesses depend on the NHS. As others have already said, many workers have continued to be out of work, which has a massive impact on our productivity. We should make no apologies for investing in our public services.

The hon. Gentleman keeps accusing those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches of not supporting public sector investment. We have championed it, and we have said that the big multinationals—the big banks and the social media giants—should bear the brunt. Just yesterday, at the Small Business 100 reception here in Parliament, the owners of Shambles, a popular family-run restaurant in Teddington, told me that the impact of the Budget on them next year will cost £50,000 to £60,000. What are they doing? They are freezing all recruitment for the next few months. How will that deliver the growth that the Labour party is apparently desperate to achieve?

As I have already said, we are protecting small businesses through this Bill and we have an industrial strategy. We are delivering record levels of public investment in the economy, and I doubt very much that the measures that the hon. Lady set out would deliver the kind of funding that this Bill will deliver. We need serious investment to fix the mess left by the previous Government.

We are providing businesses with certainty through a corporate tax road map, as others have said, and upholding our commitment to maintain corporation tax at the lowest rate in the G7. I am proud to support the investment in our country, in our NHS, in education and in rebuilding the infrastructure on which hard-working people across our country rely. We are bringing the funding needed to kick-start a decade of national renewal. While the Conservatives sit back to have their cake and eat it, this Government have acted decisively to invest strategically and build for the future.

Order. Members will be able to see that a significant number of people wish to contribute to this debate. A time limit of six minutes will be imposed after we hear from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

This Saturday is Small Business Saturday. It is an opportunity for every single one of us to celebrate the fantastic small businesses in our constituencies—businesses that are the engine of our economy and the backbone of our communities.

We know that behind every single business there is a story. Either it is a family business that has passed through the generations and evolved, or it is a start-up that was somebody’s life’s dream, but behind every story there is blood, sweat, tears and hard work. This Saturday, as we all go around our constituencies meeting and greeting small business owners, we only need to scratch the surface of even the most successful business to know that they are very worried about the impact of the Budget, particularly the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions. We have heard from many of them already, and we know what the impact will be: they will suppress wages, freeze recruitment and, in the worst cases, shut up shop.

Rightly, the Government keep talking about growth. We all want economic growth, but this particular tax will undermine growth, not unleash it. We have all heard from GPs, dentists, hospices, social care providers, charities that are commissioned to provide health and care, and public health programmes. They are all incredibly worried. None of them has been given a guarantee that the money being taken away with one hand through the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions will be given back through the renewed contracts with the NHS. We oppose this tax, but if the Government will not reverse it, we urge them at the very least to exempt health and care providers.

We have heard a number of times from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and even from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury today, that allocations will be made in the usual way, but we are six weeks on from the Budget and health services are trying to decide what to do now. They cannot wait.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that GP services, dentists and hospices are having to make decisions now on freezing recruitment and not providing wage increases, so there is real urgency to this measure.

The changes go beyond health and care. They will also affect early years providers and education providers, at a time when we should be reducing the costs of childcare and care services and supporting parents back into work. The measure will undermine that. I have heard from housing associations, Citizens Advice and hospitality companies that the pressure from this measure will make life incredibly difficult for them. Hospitality in particular relies on a lot of part-time workers, and the changes to national insurance contributions will have a terrible effect. Many of them tell me that at the moment—before the changes have taken effect—employer national insurance contributions liability is incurred only once a part-time worker starts earning £9,100 per annum. That is 15 hours a week on the current national minimum wage. Once the changes take effect, however, liability will be incurred at only £5,000 per annum, or the equivalent of 7.5 hours a week on the new national minimum wage. That will disincentivise small businesses from taking on part-time workers. Let us be honest: many people can only work part time because they are picking up the pieces of a broken health and social care system.

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Someone coming back from a mental health crisis who manages to get one day’s work a week—that may initially be all that they can manage—will, under this so-called Government of workers, find themselves hit by the measure and so will be less likely to be employed. Also, most of the cost of the measure will come out of their wages.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. Many people work part time, for all sorts of reasons. They could be coming back from a period of poor mental health. They could be returning to work after bringing up their children. They could have a fluctuating health condition, be recovering from surgery or, as I was saying, be picking up the pieces of a broken social care system, having become a family carer. We all know these people. They live among us. They are our friends, our neighbours and our family members. Many people need to work part time in order to contribute to the economy and be productive, and it is also good for their self-esteem.

A number of Labour Members have rightly challenged the Conservatives on how they would pay for this investment in the NHS, and they are right to do so, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies gave a damning account of the Conservatives’ manifesto. It said that it contained

“giveaways paid for by uncertain, unspecific and apparently victimless savings.”

Also, the Conservatives could not say where the £20 billion-worth of cuts could come from, so Labour Members are right to point to the fact that the Conservatives have not answered that question. We should hold their feet to the fire on that point, because we heard time and again in the run-up to 4 July that everything was broken and that the Conservatives had driven our economy into the ground and left our public services on their knees.

By contrast, we Liberal Democrats have set out how we would fund many of these services. The Labour party says that its measures will amount to £28 billion for investment in health and social care, or at least in the NHS, but the Office for Budget Responsibility says that once the amount is adjusted for behaviour changes and public sector rebates, it comes to only £10 billion. We have suggested a number of measures and, in the spirit of constructive opposition, I urge Labour Members to look at them, if not for this Budget, then at least for the next.

If the Government had reversed the Conservatives’ tax cuts for the big banks, that would have raised £4 billion a year. If they had doubled the remote gambling duty, that would have raised up to £900 million a year. If they had trebled the digital services tax, that would have raised £2 billion a year. We have pointed to examples of ways that the Government could have raised funds from those with the broadest shoulders. In the spirit of constructive opposition, I urge Labour colleagues to look at those measures.

The hon. Lady has cited the IFS, which said of the Liberal Democrat manifesto that

“there are clear risks that their package of tax measures would not raise the £27 billion a year that they claim.”

The IFS also described some of the measures as “a bad idea economically.” Confronted with a Bill promising actual investment and delivering actual money, will the Liberal Democrats really oppose it?

The fact remains that the IFS said that our proposals for capital gains tax, which would raise £5 billion, go in “a sensible direction”. I recognise that the IFS does not like our proposal for share buy-backs, but other think-tanks are available. Indeed, the Social Market Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research support our online gambling proposals. A broad range of think-tanks support a number of measures in our manifesto. As I said, in the spirit of constructive opposition, I urge Labour Members to look at those ideas.

I finish where I started. This Saturday is Small Business Saturday, and small businesses will shoulder a disproportionate burden from the increase to national insurance contributions. We urge the Government not to proceed with this measure, but if they do, they should, at the very least, exclude health and care providers, which are essential to getting health and care back on their feet.

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this incredibly important debate. On 30 October, the Chancellor delivered a Budget that will rebuild the foundations of our broken economy through public investment paid for by tax revenues. We are proud that those revenues will be raised from both the largest businesses and the wealthiest individuals. Public investment will be paid for by those who can best afford it, to benefit us all and make our nation more prosperous.

We entered office with the worst economic inheritance since 1945, after years of under-investment—the lowest rate in the G7—years of failure, the worst fall in wages since Napoleon, and years of chaos. In 2022, we built fewer onshore wind farms in England than we had Conservative Prime Ministers.

The Conservatives left our nation far weaker than they found it—a nation where 3 million people are too sick to work because one in 10 nursing jobs is unfilled; a nation where one in three young people fails maths GCSE because around half of our schools do not have the maths teachers that they need; the nation with the highest energy bills and inflation, because we have the worst-insulated homes in western Europe. That is what we were elected to change.

As well as having a mandate to rebuild this nation, we were also elected to rebuild hope by creating a country that, once again, gets better rather than worse.

In the spirit of hoping for growth, the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I sent a survey to all the businesses in my constituency. Perhaps we are an outlier, but 95% of businesses in Beverley and Holderness said that they expect things to be worse as a result of the Budget. It might be different in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, especially if he stays at home.

I politely suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not set up a polling company, as that is not an effective sampling strategy. Deary me. Where do I start?

Anyway, we are insulating our homes and hiring more nurses and teachers—and yes, we will pay those nurses and teachers enough money to keep them, because that is what responsible Governments do. All that investment needs to be paid for. That is why we are raising national insurance contributions for the largest employers, with £3 out of every £4 raised coming from the largest 2% of businesses. That will raise some £23 billion of investment that every family and business will benefit from. Crucially, we are raising that money while protecting the smallest businesses.

The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the largest businesses, but the Government are completely wiping out small and medium-sized businesses across the whole hospitality and retail sector. This is a catastrophic piece of legislation. He talks about a kamikaze Budget; we are considering a kamikaze Budget right here, today.

Not only are we protecting the smallest businesses by raising the employment allowance, but there will be business rates relief for the hospitality businesses to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand how frustrating it is for Liberal Democrat Members to be told that this is the Scottish Government’s problem? It is not the Scottish Government’s problem; it is the problem of Scottish businesses if they are being hit by national insurance contribution increases without business rates relief. We are tired of hearing that this was a tough decision; it was an easy decision that is tough for businesses.

It is the responsible decision to invest in this country’s foundation, so that we get the doctors, nurses and teachers that we all need, and to insulate our homes.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration for getting more funding into the NHS. On Friday, in the debate in this House on supporting people at the end of life, hon. Members from across the Chamber highlighted the importance of getting more funding and support for palliative care, but Sue Ryder warns that financial pressures, such as the rise in national insurance contributions, could force closures of crucial hospices, which patients desperately need. Noting the wider case that the hon. Gentleman is making, would he join me in urging the Government to review and revisit the impact that the measure will have on health and care providers, and the wider voluntary sector?

The Government will set out exactly what the health and care budgets will be before next April, and the investment will go towards improving the health and care system that we and our loved ones rely on. All the money that is being invested in the health service, our teachers and elsewhere across the economy needs to be raised—and, yes, we are raising it from the largest employers.

By increasing the employment allowance, we are protecting the smallest businesses. Half of businesses will pay the same national insurance or less. A quarter of a million of the smallest businesses will see their national insurance tax bill fall. From tax revenue, we will invest in our people and our places to ensure that they can thrive, building on public investment in our infrastructure and our services.

Countries that grow the fastest are not simply those that tax the least. If all we needed to do to create prosperity was cut taxes to their lowest level, Somalia would be richer than Sweden. However, IKEA is not about to relocate to Mogadishu. The countries that grow the fastest are those that raise a return on investment. Returns are higher when businesses have the roads that they need to transport their goods, workers have the skills that they need to produce more, and all of us have cheaper electricity and well insulated homes. Those are the decisions that we have made, and were proud to make, in this Budget.

Across the Atlantic, in the United States, we have seen a multi-trillion dollar investment package, which helped to deliver the fastest growth in the G7. There were new roads, new factories and new clean energy projects from Wisconsin to Wyoming. That public investment led to the fastest post-pandemic recovery in the G7, whereas we had one of the weakest. That is why, here at home, we are investing to raise returns; investing in our schools, our NHS and home insulation to make us better educated and healthier and to get energy bills down for all and for good

Opposition parties have spent an awful lot of time attacking various measures in the Budget. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they are going to do that, they need to point out which investment—money to our schools or to hospitals—they would not provide to alleviate their concerns?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If Opposition parties wish to criticise the tax rise on the largest businesses and the wealthiest individuals, they must set out what services they will cut and who will not get a GP appointment or the teachers that are needed.

We are investing to raise returns. Investing in our schools, NHS and home insulation makes us better educated and healthier and gets energy bills down for all of us. That investment is paid for through tax revenue. The principle behind which we raise that is simple yet powerful: it is about collective contribution for collective benefit, sharing in the rebuilding of our nation and, of course, the rebuilding of hope.

I assure Members that we have now resolved the problem with the clock and that there is a six-minute time limit. I call Stuart Anderson.

It is a pleasure to speak so high up on the list and to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I believe I will have different views from him in this jobs tax debate.

Manifesto commitments are very important. As politicians, we go out to the public and tell them what we are going to do. I heard time and again the phrase, “We will not raise taxes”, which Government Members will finish with “on working people”—I will come to the definition of “working people” shortly—so why are we now in a debate discussing national insurance contributions and how they will rise?

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. When the Chancellor looked at the figures and the OBR forecast, did she either not spend enough time on them, or did she not understand them? I am keen to understand that. Also, in the access talks, when Labour sat with the civil service, they were told about everything that was happening. At what stage did they then realise that the figures were completely different? They were not. Labour was able to see behind the scenes and the Chancellor had a full view, through which they could go to the British people and tell them they would not raise taxes—yet here we are today with a debate on raising taxes for working people.

I met a group of working people—I define them as working people—made up of almost every publican in Ludlow. They deal in hospitality at the highest level, given that Ludlow is the fine food capital of the UK; indeed, I invite Members to come and see that great quality. I sat with those members of the hospitality industry. Some had been in it for a few years and many for a decade or two. They knew the trade in South Shropshire and know hospitality exceptionally well, having worked year on year and created a great reputation. They are at the stage where their turnover is the same, their footfall is roughly the same, but they cannot see, as of next April, how they can make a profit. We can argue backwards and forwards about what we think. I am listening to my constituents, in a town, who almost unanimously agree that they cannot see a way forward when the Budget comes into play next year.

Under the last Conservative Government, 10 pubs closed every single week. Before the hon. Member talks about our record, will he apologise for the record of the last Conservative Government, which was incredibly damaging to businesses, particularly hospitality businesses, across the country?

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am pretty sure the Chancellor has just said, “Hold my beer, I will make that 20 pubs a week.”

My constituents are really struggling with this Budget. They cannot see a way forward and are pleading with me to lobby the Government to say that this will not work for them. These are people who know what works for them inside out. They do not own massive businesses, but many of them employ more than four people. They may not have the broadest shoulders, but they have worked for many years to make things work. Businesses are struggling not just in Ludlow, but across my constituency. Small Business Saturday is coming up, and I am hearing business after business saying that they are finding it impossible to see a way forward next year.

The hon. Member is talking about small businesses. Last week, I was proud to host the Federation of Small Businesses in Parliament. Representatives welcomed the Budget, particularly the increase in the employment allowance, which will see the smallest businesses benefit. Some 250,000 of the smallest businesses say that they are better off now than they were before the Budget. Are they wrong?

I am pretty sure that the Federation of Small Businesses has not welcomed the national insurance rise on small businesses. I am happy to look at that, but I am convinced that no small business is enjoying a rise in employers’ national insurance contribution rates.

Finally, I have a question for the Minister. Does she believe that the Chancellor will still be in her position when this Bill comes into play—if it is voted through tonight?

My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary rightly said that this Bill was about tough decisions. The Conservative party used to be about taking tough decisions. We may not have liked them, but we respected them because we thought that they were doing things in a pragmatic and consistent way. Earlier this year—in my former life as a journalist—I interviewed the former Chancellor, Ken Clarke. He said this about tax:

“I didn’t have a fixation on taxation. Taxes sometimes have to go up. Taxes sometimes have to go down. It depends on the needs of the macroeconomy and the public need…And, yes, I raised taxes quite frequently and I cut some taxes…I made my mind up on what was necessary.”

Sadly, that Tory party is long gone, replaced by the libertarian ideological collaborators of chaos whom we see on the Opposition Benches. Worst of all, their sums simply do not add up, and, as a result, it has been left to Labour to clean up the mess they left behind.

The economic situation that we inherited in the summer was much worse than anyone anticipated, so much so that Richard Hughes of the Office for Budget Responsibility said that Treasury Ministers “failed their statutory duties”. He told the Treasury Committee that there was about

“£9.5 billion worth of net”—

spending—

“pressure…which they did not disclose to us…which under the law, and under the Act they should have done.”

That is what he said to the Treasury Committee. If the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) wishes to dispute his words, will he please get up and say so?

I remember that Liz Truss and her Cabinet, some of whom are now in the shadow Cabinet, were in favour of fracking. Well, her mini-Budget certainly fracked our economy. It was a high pressure injection of debt-fuelled tax cuts made in the hope of extracting hidden growth. Instead, it created an earthquake on the money markets and led to rocketing mortgage bills that many are still feeling the aftershocks of today.

One thing that struck me most about that “Kami-Kwasi” Budget—yes, I do claim copyright on that phrase—was that the alleged tax cutters on that day were actually increasing the tax burden for millions through fiscal drag. Yes, buried away in that growth plan was the continuation of the previous Government’s plans to freeze tax thresholds, and they all backed that massive increase in the tax burden. I am pleased to say that this Government will end that fiscal drag act in 2028, uprating personal thresholds in line with inflation once again.

The chaos did not end with the Truss-Kwarteng double act, who drove themselves and the economy off a cliff like the Tory “Thelma & Louise”. Sadly, even the normally sensible right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) put his own last desperate tax cuts before public services. His spending plans were incredible in that they lacked credibility.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would never dare to tread on your toes, but perhaps something is wrong with the electronic equipment because the screen says that this is a national insurance debate, rather than some generalised debate. I sympathise, though, with the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members for not wanting to talk about their own policies—they would rather slag us off.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that that was not really a point of order. I am sure the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) is getting to the point on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.

I am, indeed, coming to exactly that point, because this is set in the context of what the Tories left behind. The clear trajectory of their last Budget was to squeeze day-to-day public spending to just 1% above inflation every year until 2029. That carried dire implications for every unprotected Department—up to £20 billion of cuts a year. The Resolution Foundation calculated that that would be the equivalent of three quarters of the cuts of the austerity years—austerity 2.0.

Sadly, there is no evidence that the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), left her own note for her successor. If she had, it surely would have read, “I’m afraid to tell you there is no money for public services.” If the Conservatives had won the last election, what would that have meant in practice? My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary revealed that when he took office, he was told that the NHS was facing such large deficits it would have to cut 20,000 appointments and operations a week. Thanks in part to the national insurance rises in the Bill, he can now deliver on our manifesto commitment to provide 40,000 extra appointments every week, with our investment in mental health services treating an extra 380,000 patients.

Is the hon. Member aware that the Royal College of General Practitioners said that it will cost 2.2 million appointments just to service the NIC payments that must be made? How does that resolve our service provision in primary care?

The Heath Secretary said that he will address that in due course, and I am sure that he will before April, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) set out. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) may want to answer the question I put to the Conservative Front Bench. If they are so opposed in principle to national insurance rises, why did they support the health and social care levy in 2021? The hon. Member voted for it, as did the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—why? They cannot tell me why because they know they are being inconsistent.

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

If he would like to explain why he voted for it, yes.

Absolutely. Does the hon. Member realise that we had to deal with that because the amount that we had to borrow in 2010 was £158 billion? For the pandemic, it was £400 billion. That is the kind of thing that the Conservatives have had to deal with that led to the difficult decisions. We were on track to have the fastest growing economy, which has now been trashed by decisions taken by Labour.

In the process, you left us with a massive structural deficit.

Order. That is the second time the hon. Gentleman has done it: I have left nothing.

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Labour is the party taking tough decisions today and refusing to duck the issues that the Conservatives were so timid to grasp, from planning reform to energy security, from welfare reform to removing tax breaks for the richest.

In the past four weeks, the Conservatives have made £6.7 billion of commitments to cut taxes, but they have not said which public services they would cut to fund them. But the most damning indictment of their low-pay, low-growth, low-investment, low-productivity economics was the model that totally failed. In 1964, the outgoing Tory Chancellor Reggie Maudling bumped into James Callaghan and said,

“Good luck, old cock. Sorry to leave it in such a mess.”

It is a shame that the current Tory party cannot earn up to their own failures with a similar sense of regret or humility.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I rise to relay some of the concerns that have been raised with me by constituents and businesses. They are concerned not only about the impact of the Bill’s proposals on small businesses in my constituency, but about the provision of public services there.

It has been interesting to listen to various opinions on this matter, but I will begin by pushing back on the implication made by some that the changes in the Bill will not have an impact on small businesses. The fact is that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that from 2026-27 onwards, 76% of the total cost of the increased employer national insurance contributions will be passed on through lower real wages. That tells us not only that there will be an impact on businesses, but that contrary to what has been suggested by some in the Chamber, there will be an impact on workers.

Much has been said about the impact on businesses, and I very much agree with those concerns, but I will concentrate my remarks on the impact on public services in Wales. It is worth noting that 30% of the Welsh workforce is employed in the public sector—a much higher proportion that the rest of the UK—so the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions equates to some £380 million. Clearly, the Bill will therefore have significant consequences for the provision of public services, and it remains unclear whether the additional Government support—or the reimbursement—will meet the increased cost.

Local authorities across Wales already face budget shortfalls of over half a billion pounds. At a time of significant budgetary pressure, Ceredigion county council—one of the county councils in my constituency—estimates that the increase in NICs will total over £4 million in one year alone. Communities deserve assurances that essential services will not be further jeopardised because funding gaps are exacerbated by the changes in the Bill. Can the Minister confirm that the full cost of the increased national insurance contributions will be reimbursed to local government in Wales? Furthermore, will that additional support be recurring? The last thing we want is for additional costs to be covered in years one, two and three, only for local government to face a funding cliff edge after that.

In addition to the direct cost to public authorities, for which the Government have suggested they will provide additional support, we should also bear in mind the other organisations—public and third sector organisations—that are integral to delivering many of the public services that we consider valuable to society. Social care providers are one example. They care for the vulnerable and help to alleviate pressure on the NHS, yet the cost of the NICs increase could be devastating for them. Care Forum Wales estimates that the cost to its members across Wales will total a staggering £45 million. I heard what was said from the Treasury Bench about additional support being allocated in the usual way, but I would like to know how that additional cost will be allocated to Wales. I understand that, in their conversations with the Welsh Government, the Government in Westminster are discussing the additional costs of only the public sector organisations that will be reimbursed directly. There are other examples in the third sector, including citizens advice bureaux, which, although they provide invaluable support to some of the most vulnerable in society, are facing significant additional costs without there being any talk of Government support.

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the OBR had to amend the numbers that it produced after the Budget because it had reduced the cost of compensating the public sector and social care by around £800 million a year. Does he, like me, want the Minister to clarify whether the Government intended to put nearly £1 billion extra into social care costs, and when it was decided, and by whom, that they should not go ahead and should leave social care in the parlous position it now finds itself in?

I very much agree. I hope that the Minister will return to that in her summing up.

I labour the point about the third sector and public sector organisations that do not stand to receive reimbursement from the Government because they are so crucial to delivering many of the public services that we have heard so much about in the debate. There is a real risk that if our social care hubs, hospices, dentists and GPs are not adequately reimbursed, all the Government will do is erode the value of the investment that they claim to be making in those services.

I could also say a little bit about the university sector. Higher education is a very important sector in my constituency: Ceredigion Preseli is home to two universities, Aberystwyth University and the University of Wales Trinity Saint David. Both organisations are currently facing very difficult times, as are most higher education institutions, and both state that they will be dealing with quite significant additional costs next year when the Government’s proposals come into force. There is no talk of additional support for those institutions, so I worry very much that we will lose the incredible economic contribution they make to my constituency, let alone their important social and cultural contribution.

Is the hon. Member about to come on to the part where he welcomes the largest real-terms settlement for Wales since devolution?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—we have been blessed with many of his contributions this afternoon. With the Barnett formula, I am not going to thank the hon. Gentleman’s Government for a larger settlement, because that settlement is only a function of spending decisions made to address the needs of public services in England. If they had proposed a reform of the Barnett formula to make it a proper needs-based formula, I would very much congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Government on doing so.

We all recognise the need to raise revenue to meet the challenges facing our economy. We have heard some alternative suggestions this afternoon—the Government could well have decided to look again at corporation tax, or at least to tackle businesses on the profits they make. Other proposals that the Government might have considered include changes to capital gains tax; for example, a full equalisation of capital gains tax rates could raise £14 billion a year. There has also been no mention by the Government of exploring a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. It is not fair that wealth inequality continues to grow at the expense of our public services and communities. It has been suggested by some that a 2% tax on assets over £10 million, which would target the top 20,000 richest people in the country, could raise £24 billion.

I fear that the proposals in this Bill will have a significant impact on both the workers and the businesses in my constituency, as well as—quite importantly—the provision of public services. We have already heard in this debate many alternative proposals that the Government could have implemented, but decided not to.

The decision we are taking today to raise employer’s national insurance contributions is a difficult one, but ultimately, it is the right choice. The situation we inherited from the last Government was so dire that it means tough choices need to be made. Asking larger businesses to pay a little more so that we can fix our broken services is a fairer option than asking working people—who already face the highest tax burden since the second world war—to pay more.

My case today is not only a moral case, but an economic one. People who think public services are a drain on the economy fail to understand how those public services make our economy function. I am reminded of a 70-year-old woman I met on the doorstep in East Thanet who was told she would have to wait 16 weeks for an initial scan to find out whether she had cancer, or the mother who had to drive around east Kent in the dark before Christmas to get medical treatment for her child who was suspected of having meningitis, because she could not register her child at a GP practice. Healthcare in east Kent is on its knees. This year, East Kent hospitals trust, which runs the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother hospital in Margate, recorded the highest number of 12-hour waiting times in England. When polled, only 45% of its staff said that they would be happy for a loved one to be treated at that trust—what an indictment.

I am prepared to accept that problems like this have existed for longer than 14 years in coastal constituencies such as mine. The NHS crisis is particularly acute in coastal communities such as East Thanet, as highlighted by a 2021 report by Chris Whitty entitled “Health in Coastal Communities”. We have some of the worst healthcare outcomes in England, with a higher rate of major diseases and a lower life expectancy, so this funding is essential for healthcare outcomes in East Thanet and in coastal communities across the country. There is a real need for a coastal communities healthcare strategy, but I challenge the Opposition to say how they would fund our NHS and improve health outcomes in coastal communities. They want all the benefits of the Budget, but they will not back the measures to deliver those benefits. They need to take some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in.

There are structural problems that we can put down to the last 14 years of Tory Government. Chronic mismanagement of the NHS and years of underfunding have left the health service crying out for help. Shifting public health responsibilities to local authorities makes sense and moving healthcare to where people live is an essential reform, but doing that while cutting real-terms funding for local authorities has been a disaster.

This is not just about making a moral argument for free healthcare at the point of use. I hope that argument has been won across most of society and in this place. This is an argument about people being able to contribute to the economy. We cannot have growth with a sick workforce and a failing healthcare system. This is about the people who are using savings to go private, or having to take time off work because they cannot afford to pay and are too sick to work. There are shift workers trying to earn money and waiting weeks for a doctor’s appointment, and small business owners working through healthcare issues when they should be getting treatment, because they cannot afford to take time off. Nobody says that this does not have an economic impact.

I know that difficult decisions have had to be made, but I have been talking to small business owners. I am particularly thinking of the owner of a chain of convenience stores in Lechlade, and the difficult decision he is having to make of which of his part-time workers he is going to lay off in the run-up to Christmas. Should not the difficult decisions be those of the big tech companies about whether they actually pay their fair share of corporation tax? Should they not be the really tough—

Order. If the hon. Lady wishes to speak later in the debate, she is very welcome to do so, but interventions have to be short, and we have a lot of people to get in.

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree that if we are to revive the high street, we will need to make sure that the online giants pay their way, and I look forward to making that argument in the future.

I refer again to the 70-year-old woman I met on the doorstep in East Thanet who was told she had to wait 16 weeks for a potential cancer diagnosis. She also told me that this is impacting on her ability to provide childcare for her family. We sometimes do not appreciate the impact on society and our economy of having an inadequate healthcare system, but it has an enormously wide-ranging impact. Raising national insurance contributions on employers is a difficult choice, but given our economic inheritance and the dire state of our NHS, it is the right one.

Do the Opposition think we should not increase NHS funding by £25.6 billion or that we should not recruit 6,500 new teachers for our schools? If they agree with these investments, how do they suggest we pay for them? There is a choice—stability, investment and reform, or chaos, incompetence and stagnation. I urge the House to support these measures to fund the NHS that the economy desperately needs.

The Government have repeatedly claimed that this is a tax on businesses, not a tax on working people, and how wrong they are. They are not only wrong, but deeply disingenuous to the people we represent who will see prices increase, their chances of employment become more difficult, and many businesses having to wind down or restrict their operations.

The owner of the Barley Mow pub in Hartford wrote to me expressing his concerns and frustration at the lack of detail the Government have provided about support for the hospitality industry. This echoes the representations made by UKHospitality, which has said that

“the tsunami of employment costs coming in April will ultimately do more to hamper growth than incentivise it. Increases to employer NICs and wages will make it harder for businesses to support employment and invest in their businesses.”

I would like to hear from the Economic Secretary, when she sums up, why the Government want the amazing pubs, restaurants and catering businesses in Huntingdon to suffer this unfair, ill thought through and deeply unpopular jobs tax.

The British Retail Consortium wrote to the Chancellor expressing its grave concerns about the impact this will have on the businesses it represents, with our largest supermarket chains having to pass on these costs to consumers, and that is before we talk about the impact of this Budget on farmers, but I am sure Labour Members will have plenty to say about that tomorrow.

Not only will businesses with high numbers of lower-paid workers be impacted, but I have received many emails from GP surgeries and hospices that are terrified about what this means for them. I pay tribute to the Cambridgeshire local medical committee for the work it has done in raising the fact that the average GP surgery in Huntington, with just under 14,000 patients, will face increased costs, with the minimum wage and national insurance changes, of approximately £48,000. That money is equivalent to the salary for three and a half sessions of a newly qualified GP, one full-time equivalent nurse, and almost two full-time healthcare assistants. Added to that, a GP who has served Huntingdon for 30 years told me that the increased costs might see many practitioners hand back their contracts. Who will suffer from that? The staff of Moat House surgery or Grove medical practice who could be out of jobs, and the patients of Priory Fields or Brampton surgeries who might lose their GPs.

Dr Duncan Outram and Dr Barbara Uszycka have a combined 62 years of service in the NHS, 50 of which have been serving Huntingdon. They told me that the estimated black hole of £37,000 is causing great concern not only about their future plans, but because it risks more young professionals leaving the NHS. GPs serve our communities in the most amazing way and they are a key part of medical care for so many of us. The impact that the measure will have on NHS provision is deeply damaging and must be reviewed. We must protect the NHS to ensure that our constituents get the care they need, but this policy does the opposite.

Added to the list of those concerned are hospices, which are already so overstretched. Despite being a key part of end of life care, they are terrified about the impact of this measure on the amazing care that they offer. Furthermore, we have hardly heard what it would mean for our armed forces. Although we constantly hear from the Government that they are prioritising national security, we do not know what the potential impact of this provision would be on the MOD’s budget. All that shows that the Government are rushing into implementing something, without any detail about what the impact will be in so many areas.

In conclusion, I urge the Government to rethink and have the moral courage to take ownership of their mistake. If they go ahead with this policy, we will see people lose their jobs, businesses be unable to expand, care provision stretched even further, and working people suffering. The Government should go back to their manifesto and say no to back-door stealth taxes on working people.

The Budget delivered in this House a few weeks ago was a Budget for growth, investment and public services. It was a Budget delivered by a Chancellor who was direct about the scale of the challenge that we inherited from the Conservative party, and who was clear and optimistic that we can build a better country, but only with honesty and clarity about how we raise the revenue we need. The increase in employer national insurance contributions will raise £25 billion. That is a choice made by this Labour Government, but it was the only responsible choice available to us on discovering the depth of the damage done over the last 14 years.

The cost to the economy is over £25 billion, but the net cost, having adjusted for behavioural change and compensating the public sector, is more like £10 billion or £11 billion. Does he regret that this particular vehicle was chosen? It damages the economy, it will take nearly £20 billion out of people’s wages, and it raises only £10 billion or £11 billion. It is about the worst tax imposition we could think of.

I do not regret the vehicle we have chosen. I have faith in the figures in the Red Book. Interestingly, I have heard colleagues on the Opposition Benches cite the OBR, and that is from the same party who, just two years ago when it was in government, wanted to get rid of the OBR and not listen to expert voices at all. Indeed, I remember them saying that they had “had enough of experts”.

We have heard lots of supposedly deep concern for business from Conservative Members. Of course that was not so much of an issue for the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who as Prime Minister told his Government to “eff business”. Or indeed for his successor, the former Member for South West Norfolk. Her one fiscal event as Prime Minister was called a “mini-Budget”, but the lasting damage that it did to our economy was anything but small—markets in turmoil, higher mortgage repayments for thousands of my constituents in Welwyn Hatfield, debt rising, debt interest payments up, and of course not even a hint of an apology.

As for the most recent Administration, I am sorry not to see the shadow Chancellor in his place. During the election campaign I hugely respected how many times he hit the airwaves of TV and radio stations to defend the manifesto that the Conservatives put to the country. For a verdict on that manifesto I defer to Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said:

“What the manifesto did not tell us was where the £10 to £20 billion of cuts to spending on unprotected public services…might come from. This manifesto remains silent on the wider problems facing core public services.”

The Labour party will not stay silent on the problems facing our public services. Opposition parties can choose fantasy economics; we choose a change to national insurance to fund the rescue and reform that our public services need. That change starts with paying our public servants properly. When I go through the Lobby to support this national insurance Bill, I will think of the serving members of the armed forces, who received a 6% pay rise from this Labour Government, the biggest in 22 years. I will think of the extra money in the pockets of the police, who faced down the shocking disorder in our communities across the country this summer. I will think of Daisy and Jake, the two paramedics I joined on a shift in Hertfordshire a few months ago.

Has the hon. Member spoken to anyone in his constituency who is not in the public sector?

Absolutely. I speak to businesses day in, day out. Those businesses say to me, “Thank goodness we have had a change in government after the past 14 years.” I will return to Daisy and Jake, because I would like to put them on the record. I joined those two paramedics on a shift in Hertfordshire. They are extraordinarily dedicated public servants finally receiving an overdue boost to their incomes.

I also think of our teachers. I have visited a different school in Welwyn Hatfield in almost every week of this job, and it is invariably the highlight of my week to meet such dedicated staff and inspiring pupils. At the same time, it is evident how many schools are stretched to their limit and beyond. This change to national insurance helps to fund a billion in extra revenue for the special education needs and disabilities budget and, further, it makes sure that we can recruit 6,500 additional teachers across the country.

Everyone in this House has a choice today. Members can choose to oppose the Bill and by doing so confirm that they are not serious about the public finances or our public services, or they can support it, and back our nurses, the police, the fire service, teachers and our serving military personnel. I will back this Bill as I backed the Budget. Together, they are the foundation on which this Government will deliver on our manifesto and drive the change our country so badly needs.

I welcome some of the measures introduced in the Budget, such as more investment in the NHS to start repairing all the damage done to our local health services by the Conservatives. However, the increase to employer national insurance contributions is the wrong decision and will have a serious impact on key sectors and services across the country.

A few examples of such negative impacts stand out. First, on local authorities, I was glad to hear from Somerset council that it believes it will be fully compensated in the settlement for its share of the increase in employer national insurance contributions this year, but as the Minister knows, Somerset council works with care organisations and care homes to provide care for more than 5,000 people. As their share is not covered, those companies will need to increase their charges to Somerset council, impacting hugely on the council finances. Will the Minister commit to supporting the council with those extra costs?

Secondly, many community pharmacies that provide essential services in my constituency and across the country, affecting everyone, are struggling with existing financial pressures. The community pharmacy sector has faced a decade of funding cuts, and the NHS workload has increased. We have already lost 1,200 pharmacies from our communities since 2015. However, as independent contractors, pharmacies will not be exempt from the rise in national insurance. How does the Minister expect pharmacies to continue to support communities and the NHS when yet more pressure is being placed on them?

Finally, the Government have made funding and supporting access to nurseries a priority, which I welcome, but raising the national insurance rate for employers could worsen the shortfall of nursery funding, with parents having to pay. The Early Years Alliance said that 95% of childcare providers were set to increase fees, as the Government did not mitigate the national insurance contributions increase and the rise in the minimum wage. Will the Minister commit to supporting nurseries too?

In conclusion, raising national insurance is a tax on jobs that will deal a hammer blow to small businesses and struggling care providers. Should the Government not look to raise money by reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks or by asking social media giants to pay their fair share, rather than burdening sectors that provide essential services to our communities?

It is real pleasure to rise in support of the Bill and to follow excellent speeches from Labour Members setting out eloquently why the Bill is necessary. As the House has dissected at length in recent weeks in the debates following the Budget and last week’s debate on the Finance Bill, which I was happy to take part in, the public finances that the Government have inherited are clearly in an incredibly parlous state—that is probably the politest description that anyone has used today. I want to outline briefly why the Bill is necessary and how it will protect and promote small businesses across our country.

The Bill forms part of a long-term plan to fix the foundations of our public expenditure and provide much-needed support to public services, which we must have if all our constituents are to receive the support they need. The measures in the Bill on national insurance cannot be seen in isolation; they are part of a range of actions announced at the Budget, including abolishing non-dom tax loopholes, extending the levy on oil and gas companies, and reforming stamp duty land tax.

The Bill represents not the easy choice so often taken by the Conservatives, who self-evidently failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining, while still putting up taxes to their highest levels for 70 years. It represents the tough choices that are necessary to get us back on an even footing. The measures contained in the Bill are in large part how the new Government will begin to address the need to cut NHS waiting times, which we all know were at record highs before the devastation caused by the covid-19 pandemic, as well as the crises in our courts, local government, social care and our schools among other areas.

I want to focus in particular on how small businesses are protected in this legislation as well as more broadly on the measures announced at the Budget. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy across our country, and particularly so in my constituency. One of the great pleasures of the last few months has been to visit and meet the people who run small businesses across Dartford, in Swanscombe, Greenhithe, Longfield and other places.

I want to quote the Federation of Small Businesses, since it has been mentioned in the debate. In response to the Budget, and recognising that it was a tough Budget, it stated:

“Increasing the employment allowance for small businesses by a record amount is a very welcome move and we’re pleased the Chancellor has heard us loud and clear.”

You state—

He!

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member stated that he has spoken to constituents and many small businesses across his constituency, but he quoted the Federation of Small Businesses. Could we hear from businesses that he has spoken to as to how this measure benefits them?

The businesses in my constituency feel that the most important thing is to have a good trading environment, and I am happy to report that they feel that if we have support for public services and economic growth, the trading environment will be right for them.

The FSB also said:

“Against a challenging backdrop, today’s Budget shows a clear direction in business policy now for the whole of this Parliament to target support at small businesses, rather than big corporates—prioritising everyday entrepreneurs working in local communities in all parts of the country.”

That is thanks to the choice that the Labour Government have made to protect small businesses by increasing the employment allowance, as has been said, and expanding it to all eligible employers.

It must also be seen alongside the Government’s plans to rebalance business rates and new measures announced in September, which I very much welcome, to support small businesses and the self-employed by tackling the scourge of late payments, which, according to the Smart Data Foundry, cost small and medium-sized enterprises £22,000 a year on average and, according to research by the Federation of Small Businesses, lead 50,000 businesses to close each year. Taken on balance, the measures to assist small businesses and the measures to invest in public services make this a Budget that is positive for our country and will help to rebuild our economy.

There appears to be a glaring omission on the part of the Government: without a thriving private sector, there is no public sector to fund at all. I wish that Labour would acknowledge that much more vehemently and clearly than it appears to.

The Government talk a lot about public services and how the proposals they have put forward in the Budget will support a thriving public sector, but we do not hear about the public sector needing to deliver much more, in terms of productivity gains. If we keep throwing money into public services without a serious plan for structural reform, we fail every single stakeholder—the taxpayer, and, if we are talking about the NHS, the patient and the doctor.

We have heard a lot this afternoon about investment in the public sector and what the proposals will do to small businesses, but we have not heard the Opposition recognise that this country needs a healthy workforce. The Bill proposes a sustainable and manageable approach to funding that healthy workforce. Will the hon. Gentleman describe to the House how damaging the previous Government’s treatment of the workforce was, and the long-standing and growing number of people claiming out-of-work benefits? Does he not see that the Bill will make a sustainable contribution?

I think the hon. Lady misses the point that I am making. If we are to have a thriving, sustainable set of public services, it is not just a case of funding them; we need structural reform, so that we can deliver the best-quality services at the point of need. Take the NHS as an example. It is fundamentally different from how it was at its inception. People live longer and suffer from different illnesses. It is incumbent on Government, the whole of the public sector and this Parliament to focus on how money is spent to deliver value for money for everyone involved.

A few weeks ago, the Chancellor said that businesses that were concerned about the impact of proposals in this Budget should “cut their cloth accordingly”. Well, the same should apply to Government. Every single one of us should challenge Government to spend our money much more effectively. Once we do that, the tax burden will come down, and when that happens, we can pass on those savings. It is those savings that will ultimately underpin and provide the foundation for an economy that will grow and incentivise businesses across the board.

The Government talk a lot about the climate and the context that they inherited, but they repeatedly fail to acknowledge covid—one of the biggest public finance interventions this country has seen, which took place only a few years ago.

I agree that there needs to be reform of the NHS alongside this investment, and I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In a recent speech, the Secretary of State set out what some of those reforms could be; I would welcome hearing what the hon. Gentleman thinks the reforms to go alongside the investment ought to be. Would he acknowledge, too, that one of the reasons why the NHS was in such a difficult position when dealing with the pandemic was that it was starved of funding and left under-prepared?

Absolutely not. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Under the previous Government, the NHS received record levels of funding. The Government have committed additional funds to the NHS, but they have not put forward a productivity improvement plan. The Government are unable to deliver structural reforms because they are in the pocket of their union paymasters. They have zero incentive at all to structurally reform the public services that they claim to care about so dearly. I touched on covid and the financial climate that this Government inherited. Over 14 years, the previous Government delivered 800 jobs per day. The previous Government also delivered a direct cut of £900 in national insurance to the pocket of every “working person”.

Governing is about choices. In this Budget, the Government are borrowing £40 billion of additional spending. In reality, we are seeing the same old tax-and-spend Labour. Let us look at some of those choices. National insurance contributions are up. The Chancellor said that NIC increases for employers would be a jobs tax. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that would be a straightforward breach of the manifesto. Rate relief is down. A typical pub is paying £6,000 more in business rates per annum. There is the family farm tax, which I desperately hope this Government will do a U-turn on, and the education tax.

Let us look at the impact of all those decisions. The economy is flatlining—there was 0.1% growth in quarter 3. Inflation is up, from 1.7% to 2.3%. There was a 64% increase in business closures the week after the Budget. Asda has said that the Government’s decisions in the Budget risk price rises. John Lewis has said that it is worried about the impact of the national minimum wage increase. Two thirds of businesses claim that they are looking at freezing recruitment or making job cuts. We have already heard hon. Members talk about the impact on the charity sector. In fact, during this debate, I received an email from YMCA, which said that because of the increase in national insurance that it will have to pay in Worcestershire, it will look to freeze all recruitment and probably make redundancies. It will not be able to give a pay award to any of its staff, and it will look at cutting services. That is damning. We see from the Government an ideological pursuit of a policy that is really a false economy. Labour is failing the very working person that it claims to be protecting.

I have been an MP for five months. I have had some wonderful moments in my constituency and in this place, but there have also been some tough and sobering moments. One of those was soon after the election, when I sat here listening to the Chancellor’s statement on the public spending inheritance. I heard about the huge hole in the public finances, the promises made without the money to pay for them, a promised new hospitals programme with no money behind it, and promised compensation for miscarriages of justice and promised funding for Ukraine that were not in the Conservatives’ budget. I was truly shocked by the sheer scale of Conservative economic mismanagement and—I will admit—I was intimidated by the sheer scale of the challenge to put it right.

Has the hon. Member seen a breakdown of the £22 billion black hole? Because I have not.

The hon. Member should go on Google.

In the months that have followed, I have been proud that this Government have been willing to make the hard choices necessary to protect our economic security, and have taken the long-term decisions necessary to fix the foundations of our country and finally prioritise our broken public services. We are investing in the NHS, rebuilding our crumbling classrooms and recruiting thousands of teachers to end the era of government by press release and empty promises. That is why I support this legislation.

The hon. Lady stated that she was intimidated by her Budget. I should imagine that is very true—

I did not say that.

Okay. Well, was she intimidated by her Budget? I take it that she would be intimidated by the growth that has been revised downwards, by business confidence crashing, and by private sector employers stating that they will have to let employees go because of the red tape put on businesses, all through this Government’s Budget.

I ask the hon. Gentleman not to twist my words. I very clearly said that I was intimidated by the sheer scale of the mess that the Conservative party left our economy in, and the hard conversations I have had to have with my constituents because of how much harder that has made it to make things better for them.

Some of the bigger businesses in my constituency will find the changes difficult, and I thank those who have shared their views with me, but I believe that this was a fair choice, given the situation that we are in. Small businesses in my constituency will benefit from the changes, and there is also the benefit to all of us from our significant investment in public services. Hairdressers, beauticians, cleaners, independent shops and artisan bakers—the lifeblood of Reading West and Mid Berkshire —will stand to benefit from the expanded employment allowance, which will allow them to employ the equivalent of four full-time workers on the national living wage without paying any national insurance contributions on their wages.

Businesses in my constituency will also benefit from our reforms of business rates, our action to tackle late payments, our significant investment in roads and infrastructure, our plan to restore our high streets, our commitment to the lowest corporation tax in the G7, and, of course, our cast-iron commitment to protecting economic stability and growing our economy.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), the Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it. They say that they support investment in our public services, but they do not say how they would pay for it. They have perfected faux outrage, but they crashed the economy and left a huge mess for us to clean up. They are yet again unwilling to make tough decisions in the national interest, but we will not repeat their mistakes. We will fix the foundations of our economy and our public services, working hand in hand with our great British businesses, and we will get our future back on track.

What is the café owner, the hotelier, the mobile mechanic, the gardener, the florist and—dare I even say it?—the farmer, if not an ordinary working person? The Government’ s false prospectus and their dubious cleavage between who is and who is not an ordinary working person is the snake oil that will be their undoing sooner rather than later. I also inform Treasury Ministers, which I really should not have to do, that when they refer to a business consisting of four or five people, they are referring to a microbusiness, not a small business. One would really expect the Treasury to be able to make such a distinction.

The Scottish Government pointed out last week that Labour’s raid on national insurance would leave a shortfall of at least £200 million in Scottish public sector finances. Labour’s own figures show that the cost to Scotland of the national insurance increase will be over £500 million, including a cost of £191 million to Scotland’s NHS, and that is corroborated by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which has estimated that the Scottish Government will be left with a £500 million shortfall as a result of these taxes. In my constituency, Perth and Kinross council is facing a £5.4 million recurring pressure, while Angus council faces a £5 million pound pressure. When indirect employees such as those in childcare settings, general practices, colleges or social care are included, the figure in Scotland rises to £750 million pounds, for which we have been offered £300 million in compensation. It is absolutely scandalous. In Scotland, which has more top universities per head of population than any other nation in the world, the university sector is under tremendous pressure. And what of the private sector? The bill for Scotland—the gross quantum by which it will be penalised by this fiscal misadventure—is £2 billion, and the private sector is on the hook for £1.25 billion of that, which is entirely unacceptable.

While we are talking about what is happening to Scotland, wouldn’t it have been nice if some of the Scottish Labour MPs had turned up for the debate to speak up for their constituents? [Interruption.] Perhaps one who was not a parliamentary private secretary, and did not have to be here.

About 600,000 people in Scotland are employed in the public sector, making up 22% of the workforce, as opposed to about 17% in the UK as a whole. That means that exposure in Scotland is even greater. The Fraser of Allander Institute has said that the UK Government appear to be applying Barnett consequentials to the public sector compensation for increased NICs, although public sector employees are not uniformly distributed between Scotland and rest of the UK. It notes:

“The UK Government has set aside £4.7 billion to compensate public sector employers”,

although the institute says that “it remains unclear” how they have done that. It says that

“The size of the Scottish devolved public sector is 547,000, which is 9.2% of all public sector employment in the UK”.

That is a consequence of Scotland’s geography, and of political decisions that have been made in Scotland. I am not shying away from that; far from it. I am proud of it.

The Westminster Government have increased the Scottish block grant for 2025-26 by £3.4 billion, which comes with a £2 billion clawback. That is devolution in a nutshell. The increase in national insurance will prove disastrous for wages, public services, businesses and growth in Scotland. Ahead of Scotland’s Budget tomorrow, it is vital for the UK Government to reconsider their approach and fully fund this Labour national insurance raid.

The OBR has said that it believes most of the increase in national insurance will be passed on to workers and consumers in the form of lower wages and higher prices—you do not need to be an economic wizard to work that out—and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that the move will increase the cost of employing a worker in the bottom fifth of earners by 4%, compared with around 1.5% for workers in the top fifth of earners. As such, it is clear that this intervention will hit lower-paid workers worst and increase the risk of fewer jobs being available in the marketplace.

Business owners have said that they are now rethinking expansion plans for 2025 or delaying planned investments. In a joint letter earlier this month, 81 of the biggest retail names in the UK warned the Chancellor that her Budget

“will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”

The chief executive officers of Sainsbury’s, Asda and BT are all talking about rises in their operating costs, which will have to be funded somewhere, most likely through price rises.

The British Medical Association has described the national insurance increase as an

“existential threat to NHS General Practice”.

GPs are already struggling with a recruitment crisis and staff shortages at a time of growing demand and increasing pressures, and a survey of care home providers in Scotland found that nearly half of them are noting the very real possibility of service closure as a result of the increase in national insurance. Similarly, charities are negatively affected.

This measure is dysfunctional in a literal sense. It will not deliver what the Government hope; rather, as we all know and the Government should know, it will reduce growth, suppress wages, cost jobs, lower recruitment, increase inflation and lower living standards. What kind of Government would carry out such a calamitous act of economic self-harm? Well, we know: this kind of Government. I look forward to voting against this Bill tonight.

In the recent autumn Budget—it might feel like a long way away, but it was only a few weeks ago—the Chancellor made a decision to change the system of employer’s national insurance contributions. The purpose was to make the largest businesses make a contribution to fund the public services on which working people and businesses rely.

As part of the changes to national insurance, we have increased the employment allowance to £10,500, explicitly to protect small businesses. The changes mean that a quarter of a million employers will see the amount of national insurance that they pay get cut.

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously consider a GP surgery in my constituency with seven doctors and six members of staff to be one of the largest businesses, even though it is suffering from tens of thousands of pounds in extra costs and will have to lay people off, which will reduce capacity?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he makes an excellent point that I was hoping to come to later in my speech. The previous Government cut national insurance, and do you know what was also cut? The number of GPs in my constituency. It is more complicated than Members pretend; it is not “national insurance vs. GPs”. If it were that simple, I would have more GPs, not less, in Gateshead Central and Whickham. I would urge those who were enthusiastically cheerleading the previous Government to take a moment to think about that.

It is right to say that politics is far more complicated than soundbites. The previous Government, alongside their coalition partners, brought in austerity, which had a huge impact on small and medium-sized businesses, because it affected the spending power of working people. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is always worth reminding Members of all shades and stripes of the existence of the coalition Government. Quite often I hear the Liberal Democrats talk about 14 years of terrible decisions, but I am afraid that they have to own five of those years.

We have not heard the Opposition thank this Government for increasing the minimum wage—the words are “thank you”, by the way—to £12.21 an hour. As we have seen, when we increase the minimum wage and put more money in the pockets of working people of all stripes, we see more money spent on high streets and in local communities, and more thriving local businesses. I have been meeting local businesses recently, including Prism Coffee in Saltwell park—it does an excellent flat white, by the way—the Rare Drop in Low Fell, which has an absolutely fantastic selection of beers and cheeses, and my next-door neighbour, the owner of Creations and Alterations, who can do some work on your suit.

But what people in Low Fell have been speaking to me about recently is crime—retail crime and crime on our high streets—and we are going to tackle that by raising money and spending more on the police so that they can be not only a visible presence in our communities but solve crimes. For too long, break-ins have been ignored, and that is a fundamental problem for businesses. If they are having to spend £1,400 on getting shutters for their shop on the high street, that is a fundamental hit to their bottom line. If they are having the back door of their business kicked in every night of the week, whether money is stolen or not, that it is pushing up their insurance premiums and it is a hit to their bottom line. How do we tackle that? With more police on the streets, and we will fund that with this national insurance increase.

The Government will receive £10 billion from this intervention in the tax regime. How many times are they going to spend it?

I thank the hon. Member for his point. This is what is known as a balanced Budget, and we on this side of the House are going to do something remarkable. The amount of money that we raise will match the amount of money that we spend. I know that might seem alien to some of those on the Opposition Benches, but that is what we are going to do.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I have been more than generous in taking interventions so far.

It is amazing to see the anger that has been generated among Conservative Members. Let us remember their record, because it is important for the context. In government, they doubled the national debt, stagnated wages—which is awful for businesses, by the way, especially small businesses that rely on local people spending money—and caused a cost of living crisis. Their own Prime Minister, Liz Truss—remember the name?—delivered a Budget made up of £45 billion of unfunded tax commitments and crashed the value of the pound to its lowest ever value against the dollar. The British people suffered, waiting lists soared, schools crumbled, buses did not come on time or at all and we waited hours for ambulances or years for surgery.

I am concerned about GPs, because I am sick of people having to call at 8 o’clock every morning to demand an appointment for themselves or for their child, only to be told that there are no appointments that day. This Government will invest in our NHS to tackle the GP crisis, because that is what hurts working people. When people are unwell, when people cannot go to work and when there is crime in their communities, that has an impact on business. It is false to say otherwise, and we cannot continue having this debate. We are taking a balanced and, in my view, reasonable position, which is why I will be voting for the Bill this evening. We raise taxes and we spend the money on things that are good for society. We cannot pretend that we can do good things for society without raising the taxes to pay for them.

Like many Labour Members, I have a huge amount of experience of opposition. I have never sat on the Opposition Benches and I do not want to sit on them any time soon, but I have a huge amount of experience of the business of opposition, and I would gently offer some advice that I doubt will be taken. You are going to have to do a lot better than this if you want to convince—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do apologise. The Conservatives will need to do a great deal to convince the British people that they have heard the lesson that was given to them in July. If they continue in this vein of listening to only one side of the conversation—the one that they want to hear—they might not like the answer they get.

It is the job of any Government to grow the economy and grow jobs. The best way of delivering money for public services is to grow the tax base without having to increase taxes, so it is hardly surprising that the Chancellor wrapped up her bad Budget as a growth Budget. Unfortunately, when she unwrapped it at the Dispatch Box, it was nothing of the kind. The Treasury’s own analysis said that growth would peak at 2% next year, and then fall for the rest of the decade. The OBR’s analysis said that the Budget was inflationary. It is bad for the economy and it is bad for the businesses that we rely on to grow our tax base for public services.

I turn now to public services, particularly health and social care. The Chancellor knows—and knew—that the increase in national insurance contributions will be devastating for healthcare, which is why she exempted the NHS, but that shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of how healthcare is delivered in this country. The NHS directly delivers a part of healthcare that is free at the point of use, but much of the rest is delivered indirectly through contracting, via partnerships such as GP practices, charities such as hospices, and businesses such as pharmacy, dentistry and social care providers. The NHS cannot exist without those key healthcare services, none of which shares in the exemption from the national insurance contribution rises.

The chief executive of Hospice UK has said that that means charitable income raised by hospices to the tune of £30 million will be taken in national insurance contributions to fund the NHS, which does not properly fund hospices in the first place. The British Dental Association wrote to the Secretary of State to ask whether there has been an impact assessment of the effect of national insurance contribution rises on the finances of dentists. The answer was that no impact assessment had been done. The Government do not even understand the effects of their Budget and these national insurance contribution rises on healthcare in this country.

For two local hospices just outside my constituency, Mountbatten Isle of Wight and Mountbatten Hampshire, which serve my constituents, the combined effect of these national insurance contribution rises and the pay rises for nurses, for which the NHS will not pay the hospices, is £900,000 of costs, with not a penny promised or delivered through the contract with the integrated care board.

It is all very well for Labour Members to say that this Budget will deliver for the NHS, but that is not much good when it will put further pressure on GP practices, pharmacies, hospices, dentistry and social care. If those services crumble, the NHS will not be able to continue in its current form, so I urge Labour Members to press the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to get on with his reforms to properly fund GPs, hospices, pharmacies and dentists before they have to make tough decisions that will mean redundancies and job losses.

I have just calculated how to get everybody in before we run out of time, and I will have to drop the time limit to four minutes.

It is clear to everyone on this side of the House that the measures in the Bill are a vital step towards securing the long-term stability of the public finances. We are not prepared to continue with the fiction that no difficult decisions are required to balance the books. Unlike the Conservatives, this Labour Government are not interested in more decline, more austerity or forcing the poorest in society to pay for the previous Government’s mistakes.

The decisions that we are taking are not easy. Increasing employer national insurance contributions to 15% is not easy. Reducing the secondary threshold to £5,000 is not easy. And, of course, constituents are absolutely right to ask me why this is happening. Well, that question would be best answered by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives crashed our economy, mortgage rates went through the roof, and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was wasted on a failed asylum system and on dodgy covid contracts. They promised the victims of the infected blood scandal that they would be compensated, but they did not put a single penny aside for it. They promised the same for the sub-postmasters. They promised 40 new hospitals, but they did not allocate anywhere near enough money to deliver them, and they are still pretending that they would not have given a single penny in pay rises to our public sector workers.

The Conservatives spent the national reserve three times over in the first three months of this financial year, and all before calling an election they expected to lose, so somebody else could clean up the mess. They chose to govern not in the national interest, but in their own interest. Some Conservative Members have been brave enough to come to the House today and remind us of their great legacy, but I have to tell them that 14 years of failure and a £22 billion black hole, leaving our nation on the brink of bankruptcy, is their legacy.

By making changes to national insurance contributions, we will be able to provide the funding to public services that is desperately needed, including, but not limited to, investing £25 billion in our NHS, recruiting 6,500 new teachers and providing local authorities with £600 million for social care.

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, as I want to ensure everybody gets in.

In addition, we are committed to protecting small businesses by increasing the employment allowance to £10,500. We are blessed in Leeds South West and Morley with hundreds of small businesses, right across the constituency, from Queen Street in Morley, to Wortley, and back again to Ardsley. I can say to many of them that the changes will mean that many small businesses will pay the same or less than they do now.

We will not run away from the difficult decisions—we back our country to succeed. Given the obvious opposition of Conservative Members to the measures, I ask them, how will they pay for our public services? Perhaps I need to give way at this point.

I serve on the Education Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and I wonder what he will say to people who work in the education sector, many of whom are low paid and running schools that support teaching assistants to work with children with special educational needs and disabilities. They now face a bigger wage bill because of the measures the Government are introducing. Will the hon. Gentleman address those points?

In the minute remaining to me, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he needs to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition. The simple truth is that she has welcomed the positive spending plans that we have put forward in the Budget, but has rejected every revenue-raising measure we have suggested.

We are going to take the tough decisions, including those set out in the Bill, to fix the foundations of our economy and restore our public finances. The choice is pretty clear: a Labour Government who invest in our country’s future or a Conservative party still obsessed with fantasy politics based on saving the party, not our country. The choice is clear, and I know which side I am on.

As a new Member of Parliament, I was looking at the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), when he was responding to the Minister, and trying to figure out why he looked so familiar. I realised that it was because he was Liz Truss’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury; the person who had to go out and defend Liz Truss’s mini-Budget. I therefore wonder why this new Conservative party led by a new person is sending out Liz Truss’s Treasury Minister to respond to a Labour Budget that is mopping up some of the mess created by her. When I realised that, it got me thinking about how much we should be listening to the Conservative party. This is a party that, in its contributions today, has shown no desire to learn a lesson from the election or listen to voters who were so damaged in their incomes and their lives by the Government we have replaced, but only a desire to play politics at its worst. The Conservative party has done that rather than actually scrutinise what this Government’s Budget is intended to achieve.

It is worth reflecting on what has happened over recent years. The economy crashed, mortgages were sent through the roof and an early election was called to avoid the Conservative party having to deliver the Budget. There were covid contracts that cost this country millions and a £22 billion black hole; that is what this Government are having to respond to.

As this is such an important topic, why are there fewer than half a dozen Back-Bench Government MPs here to discuss it? It is not important enough to get their Benches full?

I have literally just said that this debate should not be about party politics, but about the scrutiny of this Government’s Budget. Instead of asking questions about the nature and substance of the Budget, the Opposition are resorting to party politics. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) says from a sedentary position, we could list debates such as the Grenfell Tower inquiry debate yesterday, during which Conservative Members were deserting their Benches.

The burden of tax has fallen on working people for far too long under the Conservatives. Working people have suffered in many more ways, too: they have been unable to get the NHS appointments they want, the mortgages they want and all the services they should be entitled to. When I have knocked on doors in Bournemouth East and spoken with thousands of people over the last two years, the overwhelming feeling has been of hopelessness. It is the feeling that nothing ever changes in politics because there is a constant back and forth between our Benches about unimportant things rather than a focus on what those people actually want.

People want an NHS that will truly deliver. They want the 40,000 additional appointments a week. They want the billion pounds that is being invested in SEND. They want the £600 million going into social care. They want the £22 billion going into our NHS to start to fix the problems that have been ongoing for 14 years. I say to Opposition Members that if they are dedicated to their constituencies, if they care deeply about putting our public services back on track, and if they care about an economy that grows so that we have private businesses supporting our investment in the public sector, they should be voting with the Government tonight. I am disappointed to see so many of them saying that they will not be doing so.

We are the Opposition. You are the Government.

We are the Government taking decisions in the national interest. The Conservatives are the Opposition taking decisions on behalf of their party’s interest. That is why, I am afraid, the Conservatives will not be coming back into power any time soon. They are not prepared to listen to what voters want, they are not prepared to take the tough decisions, and they are not prepared to come to the table, be constructive and try to put right the problems that they have created.

We have a long road ahead to put our NHS our economy and our public finances back on track, but this is a Government with a historic majority and a historic mandate to serve our nation’s interest. I call on those on the Opposition Benches—obviously not the Conservatives—to support this Government in what we are doing, because, together, we can put this country back together.

We have a mission-led Government. I am not sure whether anybody knows exactly what that means, but we do know what the mission is meant to be: delivering for working people. But I am afraid that the Government have forgotten how working people become working people. It is the people—the other people—who employ them. All of us in this House want excellent public services, but it is only the Conservatives who understand that to get excellent public services, business needs to generate the wealth. The Government have a bit of a “four legs good, two legs bad” mantra that sees business as a cash cow to be milked to pay for the public sector. They have forgotten that fundamental dependency. They have even messed up the “four legs good, two legs bad” theory, because they seem to have forgotten that a very large part of what delivers our public services is people—people who are not directly employed by the public sector.

Let us take nurseries as an example. We have had another mission this week on early years education, which I welcome, but it will be hampered in its delivery by this national insurance contributions rise. Then there are the universities. They received a bonus of £390 million from a fee increase a couple of weeks ago, but they will be paying £400 million in extra national insurance contributions.

I have also heard from many GPs across my constituency in East Hampshire, who see the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The Minister says that the Government will take care of this in the settlement for GPs, which is fine, but it should have come on top of what they should have been doing for GPs anyway. Lord Darzi and the Secretary of State have been talking about increasing the focus on primary care. We know how the Treasury works when it is making its spending allocations to Departments; things will be tucked in under that settlement, so we need to see it rise. How do the Government think GP practices plan? Here we are in December, and the new financial year starts at the beginning of April. Do Ministers not think that, in the national health service, general practitioners need certainty now about what is going to happen?

The wider point is this: the Treasury can reimburse GPs, but it cannot reimburse the private sector. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a tax on business. Taxes can only ever ultimately fall on people. They fall on the owners of that business, the customers of that business, or the employees of that business. The analogy for the Treasury reimbursing GP practices for their increased costs is the employees of a private company reimbursing their employer for that cost. It is they who will ultimately pay. Economists are united in saying that employer national insurance contributions are only ever, in the end, seen in lower wages or lower employment figures. The Government talk about difficult decisions, but difficult decisions are the ones that employers will be faced with: do I cut down my wage settlements or do I let people go?

Not more than half an hour ago, I met a businessman from Northern Ireland whose firm employs 1,200 people. He said national insurance contributions will cost the firm almost £1 million a year. The cost will ultimately be passed on in its food prices, which will rise by between 15% and 20%, and the ordinary man or woman on the street will pay for it. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is where the Labour party has got this wrong?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This is not some trivial increase that is easy for an organisation to absorb. While 1.2 percentage points may not sound like much, with the serious decrease in the threshold at which it starts being paid, it is a lot of money. The cost of employing the average worker on medium earnings goes up by £900. For a 21-year-old on the legal minimum wage working full time, the cost goes up by £770. Moreover, it is regressive because it will fall more harshly on people at the lower end of the wage spectrum and on people who are part time. It cannot be seen in isolation; it must be seen alongside all the other things the Government are doing. Of course, the national living wage has risen. That increase is a good thing in itself, but the effect compounds with the other measures being taken.

Two of the three volume employer sectors in this country—retail and hospitality—are also seeing a massive reduction in the business rates relief they are getting next year. When unemployment hits, young people are always hit first and most, and that will be true again. It will hit those furthest from the labour market, those who need most help, those coming back to work after a long period and those who were ex-offenders. I sometimes wonder if Ministers talk to each other about the contradiction and irony of one of them producing a document called, “Get Britain Working” while their colleague is hellbent on doing the opposite.

It is good to speak in this important debate. This is an issue of much importance, in part because it touches on trust in politics. We know from looking at the datasets that trust in politics has fallen to a record low in this country. People sadly do not trust politicians any more to deliver on the commitments they set out in their manifestos and to bring the change necessary to improve our public services. That is the data we can see, and we can see it because of the decisions of the Conservative party.

Does the hon. Member not think that the fact the Labour party went into the last general election promising not to raise taxes on working people might be part of the problem?

We have stuck to the commitments we made in our manifesto, and that is why the British people will see over the months and years to come that they voted for change and investment in our public services, and that is what this Budget makes possible.

When we came into power in July, we faced a difficult economic inheritance. I wish we had taken power in more benign circumstances, but Opposition Members will know that public sector debt had increased to 100% of GDP—the same size as the economy—and trillions of pounds, constraining our ability—[Interruption.] They are chuntering from the Front Bench, but it is true that public sector debt increased to 100% of GDP—a massive increase on the Conservatives’ watch—making it more difficult for us to manage the public finances in a sustainable way, which is what we want to do and what they failed to do.

We also took over after 14 years of failure on productivity and wage growth. If wages had grown in line with the pre-financial crisis trend, families in my constituency and constituencies across the country would not be £100 or £200 better off a year; each worker would be £10,700 better off a year.

On productivity, all the public sector wage increases that have been given since the Government have been in power come with no productivity requests or increases. How does the hon. Member square that circle?

I think we will see productivity increases in the NHS, because part of the reason that it has struggled for productivity in recent years is that it has not had the necessary investment, so doctors and nurses have not had the beds and capital expenditure that they need in their hospitals. I have been to Barnet hospital in my Chipping Barnet constituency and spoken to the chief executive of the trust. They were clear that what has happened nationally, and has filtered through to their hospital, is that capital spending budgets have been raided to fund day-to-day spending, and that has made it more difficult for the NHS to be productive. More beds and £3 billion for scanners and other capital equipment will make a difference to productivity in the NHS. [Interruption.] Conservative Members know that that is the case.

Let us just go back to the inheritance that the Labour Government face. We have high public debt, low productivity and wage growth. Our economy has also been hampered because the Conservative party has made it much more difficult for us to trade with our nearest neighbours. That has been bad for competition and productivity across the country. I could go on about the economic inheritance, but I do not wish to make hyperbolic statements or overdo it; we can just look at the facts presented to the Labour Government.

When the Conservative Government headed by David Cameron were elected in 2010, the circumstances that they faced following Labour’s trashing of the economy meant that it took two and a half to three years to get the public on board. That stands in great contrast to what happened this summer, when Labour inherited good economic circumstances, with the economy growing and inflation down. In fact, has the electorate not been deceived?

The economy was not growing at a fast pace when we took over; we were growing slower than five other G7 countries in the quarter before the Conservative party lost power. That is the truth. Conservative Members can deny it if they want, and come up with a fancy way to analyse the economic statistics in order to claim that we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but in the final quarter before they lost office—and in 2023—we were growing slower than five other G7 countries. We were growing faster than other countries in 2022 only because we were recovering from the pandemic. They know that that is the case.

I fear that, in their stance today, Conservative Members are again covering themselves in the pong of the Liz Truss Administration. That Administration made the mistake of not making efforts to balance day-to-day public spending and tax increases. That is what caused interest rates to rise and the economy to be in much turmoil. The Labour Government are ensuring that increases in day-to-day spending are matched by increases in tax revenues—[Interruption.] I said increases in day-to-day spending are being matched by tax revenues.

I will give way.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has already taken two interventions, and the clock will now continue to run for every subsequent intervention that he takes, just in case he was not aware of that and wants to take this intervention from Mr Hinds.

Maybe I will take further interventions when I speak in tomorrow’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that many Members still wish to speak.

In my final 13 seconds, let me conclude by saying that the risk for the Conservative party is that it forgets the importance of managing the public finances, which gives us the economic stability from which growth can come. By voting against the Government, Conservative Members will make that more difficult, and will signal that they do not wish to have economic stability and growth.

The Bill represents a major breach of the promises made by the Government when they stood for election. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), was right: people should be cynical, and people are cynical about the way in which politics is sometimes conducted in this country. He talked about his amazement at the anger expressed from the Opposition Benches. I assure the House that, were the situation reversed—with the Conservative party on the Government Benches, introducing measures that the Office for Budget Responsibility, the IFS and everybody else said would hurt ordinary working people—Labour Members would be incandescent with rage.

That is the whole point. A promise was made: “We will not tax working people.” At the end of the day, when people have to pay for their goods, their shopping and so on, it really does not matter to them whether their income has been reduced as a result of direct taxation being taken out of their pay packets in the form of income tax, or whether it has been reduced indirectly by taking the money from their employer. In turn, as the IFS, the OBR and others have said, that will impact on real wages. As the IFS pointed out, it will especially impact the real wages of the lowest paid—that is the whole point. We can play with words, but the truth of the matter is that a tax increase has been imposed on employers, and the OBR says that in 76% of cases, the impact on wages will be felt by ordinary working people. That is a broken promise, no matter how we look at it.

The Government’s excuse has been that they will try to alleviate that impact. People have talked about different sectors so far in the debate, and I am not going to go through all of them, but let us just look at two examples. The first is small businesses. We are told that they can deal with the impact because they are geniuses. What will they do? They will increase productivity. Funnily enough, the public sector is to be protected—the Government are not looking for any increases in productivity there.

We are told that small businesses will find ways of decreasing their expenditure, but funnily enough, the Government are actually looking for ways of spending more money. They are spending £9 billion on a quango, Great British Energy. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero came back from COP29 and told us that the Government were now committed to giving £300 billion away to foreign Governments for climate change, but he would not even tell us how much the Government were going to pay out to those Governments. For the nationalisation of the railways, again, there is an open cheque book. We are told that there are no alternatives. Businesses have to find alternatives, but the Government happily spend the revenue that they are taking.

Then, of course, the social care sector and GPs are told, “Go to the NHS and renegotiate your contract.” The NHS does not have to pay the national insurance rise itself—it is exempt. Do we really believe that when the GPs and the social care sector go to the NHS and say, “We want to renegotiate our contracts,” the NHS is going to say, “Oh, you need money for national insurance? There you are—take it.” All the excuses have been given today: we are told that there is no money, but it can be spent on other things. We are told that the social care sector and GPs can renegotiate, and that the private sector will be inventive. Let us see some invention by the Government, rather than broken promises.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to share the concerns that my constituents and businesses in Chichester have raised with me since the announcement in the Chancellor’s Budget that employer’s national insurance contributions would be increased.

First, I would like to acknowledge the Labour Government’s inheritance from the previous Government, and recognise that tough decisions need to be made to rebuild public services, especially our health service. The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposed increase to employment allowance, but the blanket increase in the rate of secondary class 1 contributions across all sectors is going to make things harder for GPs, social care providers, charities and local authorities in my constituency and across the country. Those sectors have had a tough time for years, struggling with rising energy costs and higher interest rates, with thousands of care providers on the brink of bankruptcy, NHS dentists already delivering some NHS treatments at a financial loss, and charities already grappling with underfunded public sector contracts.

West Meads GP surgery is one of the smaller practices in Bersted in my constituency. It is looking at increased costs of at least £25,000, which will mean a reduction in staffing hours. The GP who wrote to me said:

“This is a first and will certainly impact on patient care if not addressed.”

The same can be said for Witterings Medical Centre, another practice that is already operating under extraordinary demand. The added costs will exacerbate strain in the system, because overstretched and under-resourced GPs will lead to an increase in hospital admissions, overwhelming NHS capacity at a time when it already cannot cope. The Government’s treatment of GPs as private entities excludes them from the employment allowance support, and if we do not fix the front and the back door of our national health service, the middle—our secondary care, our hospitals—will continue to bear the burden.

St Wilfrid’s hospice echoes these challenges, citing the inequity in exemptions being granted to NHS services, but not to charities providing similar health-related services. The hospice predicts a bill increase of £175,000. That would pay for four nurses, who could be out in the community providing care for the most vulnerable. The predicted national impact of this rise on the charitable sector is £1.4 billion. While I am on the topic of charities, I would like briefly to mention Stonepillow, a charity that supports individuals experiencing homelessness and with compound needs. It has seen a doubling of demand since 2018—it serves 1,000 clients annually—and it reports needing to find an additional £150,000 every year to continue offering its service.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care talked of moving the health model in this country from treatment to prevention and from hospital to community, but the increase in NICs directly undermines the ability to do that, if GPs have to reduce their services, if more dentists move further away from NHS contracts, if social care staff lose their jobs when their small and medium-sized care providers go bankrupt, and if community pharmacies, a key pillar in the NHS ecosystem, face spiralling debt and struggle to keep pace with operating costs.

In the interests of constructive opposition, I am not minded to bring problems without solutions. The Chancellor could have chosen to raise the money needed through the much fairer tax changes laid out in the Liberal Democrat manifesto during the general election, such as the reversal of the Conservative tax cuts for the big banks, doubling the rate of gaming duty paid by online gambling services or a fairer reform of capital gains tax. If I had more than 10 seconds left, I would give many other reasons why I am unfortunately unable to support this Bill on Second Reading.

I start by reminding the House of a prescient analogy of Winston Churchill’s:

“For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

This national insurance increase and threshold cut is simply a tax on jobs in the private sector. It will result in less employment, fewer bonuses, smaller pay rises and higher prices—and for what? To fund a state that is out of control and shows no regard for taxpayers’ money. That is exemplified by the Department for Work and Pensions, which hands out money like confetti, without the requisite disciplines. The answer is to radically cut the size of the state and release the innate creativity of the British people. What we need is less state, less tax, less bureaucracy and more prosperity. Will the Government accept full responsibility for the suffering that this tax increase will inevitably cause to our working people?

On Saturday evening, I was lucky to attend Sussex Chorus’s performance of Handel’s “Messiah” at St Andrew’s church in Burgess Hill. There was a collection at the end for the St Peter and St James hospice, which looks after many people in Mid Sussex. As I put my donation in the bucket, the lady holding the bucket thanked me, and she told me that her husband had spent his last days at St Peter and St James. When she realised that I was the local MP, she grasped my hand tightly, and said, “You have to do something about NICs.” I said that I had been trying to, and had been raising the matter in the Houses of Parliament, but having not been heard so far, I will raise it again today.

Our hospices and social care providers do hugely difficult, often invisible work. They look after the weak, the vulnerable and the dying, but these organisations are themselves even more vulnerable than they were as a result of the Government’s proposed changes to employer national insurance contributions, announced in the Budget. That jobs tax jeopardises the quality and reach of the services that will be available in my constituency and across the country. The children’s hospice charity Together for Short Lives estimates that the rise from 13.8% to 15% in April 2025 that was announced in the Budget will increase costs for children’s hospices, which provide lifeline care to seriously ill children, by nearly £5 million annually. Combined with inflation, falling local NHS and council funding, and uncertainty around the NHS children’s hospice grant, this policy risks reducing or even closing essential services. In the social care sector, MHA, which supports more than 17,000 older people across 80 care homes, 59 retirement communities, and 43 community based hubs, estimates that it will face an additional £4.6 million in costs in the first year alone.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I would like to make progress. Around 18,000 private social care providers operate in the UK. We must help them to help those in need, and we cannot afford to put up more barriers for them. How can we expect those providers to survive if we impose higher taxes on them? This is not making the most of an opportunity for long-term positive change; I am sad to say that it is squandering it.

The Government could have found better ways to raise the necessary funds. They could have reversed tax cuts for big banks, increased digital services taxes, or even reformed capital gains tax to ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have repeatedly urged the Government to exempt social care providers and hospices from the tax rise, and I do so once again today. Let us do right by those who work tirelessly to support and protect our most vulnerable, and in doing so, let us build a healthcare system fit for the future.

Government Members have talked about difficult choices. Not taking away the winter fuel payment from people, or voting to remove the two-child cap, might also have been difficult choices, but instead they have been easy targets. This Bill adds to those easy targets.

The Bill, presented under the guise of fiscal responsibility, is a thinly veiled austerity measure that will disproportionately burden Scotland and undermine our ability to deliver vital services to our citizens. The increase in employer national insurance contributions is touted by the Government as a necessary step to bolster public finances. However, closer examination reveals the stark reality: the increase will lead to a significant shortfall in Scotland’s public sector funding. We will be left grappling with the fact that the UK Government undervalued the cost of the measure by at least £200 million.

Scottish Government figures, corroborated by independent analysis from reputable institutions such as the Fraser of Allander Institute, paint a grim picture. The national insurance hike will cost Scotland more than £500 million, including a staggering £191 million burden on our already stretched NHS. That figure rises to an alarming £750 million when we factor in indirect employees in sectors such as childcare, GP practices and social care—sectors vital to the fabric of our society.

In Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, a local firm with a number of care homes across the north of Scotland faces an £800,000 bill. It provides vital services to the community. To give another example, a local dentist has said that the increased cost of employment as a result of the Bill may force them to go private to recoup those costs. Finally, the Bill is a double whammy for GP practices. They face the national insurance hit, but by dint of being designated a public service, are not eligible for employment allowance.

The UK Government’s paltry offer of £300 million in Barnett consequentials is simply not enough to bridge the gap, and it fails to account for Scotland’s proportionally larger public sector, which employs 22% of the workforce, compared with 17% in the UK as a whole. Among other reasons, that is because in Scotland, we already have a publicly owned and managed rail service, and a publicly owned and managed water service. The funding disparity is a clear indication that the UK Government have given scant consideration to the unique needs and circumstances of Scotland. That includes the disregard demonstrated in the winter fuel payment debacle, which exposes a pattern of neglect, regardless of which party occupies the Government Benches. It is exactly this pattern of neglect and lack of understanding of Scotland by successive UK Governments that strengthens the case for Scottish independence, and for our ability to take decisions for ourselves, like every other normal country, on the delivery of public services and taxation that impacts us.

The impact of the Bill goes far beyond mere budgetary concerns. It will have a ripple effect across our economy, harming businesses, stifling growth and ultimately hurting the very workers it purports to protect. The Office for Budget Responsibility has cautioned that the increase will likely lead to lower wages and higher prices; effectively, the burden will be passed on to consumers, and the purchasing power of hard-working families will be eroded. We urge the UK Government to reconsider this damaging Bill, to fully fund the cost of this tax hike to public services in Scotland, and to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Scottish Government, so that Scotland’s interests are protected.

We have two remaining Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should consider making their way back to the Chamber before the wind-ups.

I rise to share my concerns about the unintended consequences of this tax hike on small businesses, GPs, social care providers and farm businesses. The arguments about the damage that the previous Government left are well rehearsed, and significant effort is needed to rebuild public services and repair public finances, but this measure will do just the opposite. As GPs and the vast majority of care providers are private, they will not benefit from the compensation that the Chancellor will give to the NHS and other public sector employers to cover the cost of this tax increase.

Langport surgery in my constituency told me that it faces an additional cost of £45,000 a year, due to the national insurance rise. It said:

“at a time when general practice is facing workforce shortages, higher costs could make it even harder to hire and retain staff, directly impacting patient access”

to good-quality care. The impact on social care providers could also be severe; six in 10 of the UK’s care home beds are provided by companies that could go bankrupt if they experience even a mild economic shock. I have been discussing these difficulties with Wincanton Cares, a support and advice group for people needing care in south-east Somerset. It is concerned that care home closures may well happen, as the funding model is so precarious.

I am also worried about the impact that the measure could have on small businesses, which are the foundation of the Government’s growth agenda. In advance of Small Business Saturday, I have spoken to many businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton, including Topline Glass based in Ilton. It described the Budget as a triple whammy of increased NICs, wage rises and business rate increases. The OBR has estimated that the increases to employer NICs will reduce potential output by 0.1%, while the costs to businesses will lead to lower wages and profits. The Government should have instead listened to Liberal Democrat calls to raise money through fairer tax changes, such as reversing the Conservative tax cuts handed to big banks, increasing the digital services tax to 6%, doubling the rate of remote gaming duty paid by online gambling companies, and fair reform of capital gains tax, so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals pay their fair share.

Many farming and agricultural businesses will also be hit by this tax rise. In addition, farming businesses will now be subject to increased NICs, further stretching their budgets. The CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network has stated that the increase in national insurance will be a big concern for businesses that rely on a large workforce to pick, process and package food. As farming yields very slim returns, those added costs will likely be passed on to consumers, pushing up food prices and disproportionately affecting those least able to afford high-quality, UK-produced food.

The likely increase in the cost of UK food would inevitably lead to a reliance on cheaper imports, particularly from countries with lower production and welfare standards, undermining UK farmers and potentially increasing climate-related harm elsewhere. Driving down food security and pushing up prices is damaging to national security. The Government have an opportunity to look again at these measures that damage British farming. If they will not, they will not be forgiven.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I have previously raised in the Chamber the impact that increased employer national insurance contributions will have on GPs, dentists, pharmacies and care providers in my constituency of Eastleigh. I have also been contacted by many owners of small businesses who are hugely concerned about the impact that changes to employer national insurance contributions will have on their businesses. That includes the early years sector, which plays a crucial role in supporting working families and the wider economy. Providers who operate on tight margins and with a limited ability to adjust income face unique challenges. For a sector that is already under immense financial pressure, this added burden feels short-sighted and risks undermining the stability of a service that families rely on so heavily.

Crestwood pre-school in my constituency serves local families by providing care and education for children aged two to five. As a charity-run pre-school, it is already stretched to its limits, despite huge fundraising efforts. Clare, the manager of Crestwood, wrote to me explaining how the increase in employer national insurance contributions will add tens of thousands of pounds to its annual costs. Those are funds that it simply does not have.

I have also heard from Forest Footsteps Childcare in Chandler’s Ford, another early years provider in my constituency. Erin, who opened the centre in 2022, is worried about how she will manage the extra costs. She calculated that the new national insurance plans for employers’ contributions along with the rise in the national minimum wage will cost her approximately £13,000 a year more. While she is showing remarkable resilience, she told me that some providers have been less fortunate and already closed their doors.

The YMCA Eastleigh nursery and community centre has also shared its concerns. It told me that the combined impact of these changes will cost the nursery and community centre an extra £95,000 a year. This is a problem being acutely felt across the whole sector.

These stories are not unique. Across the country, nurseries, pre-schools and childminders are warning that rising employer national insurance contributions coupled with inadequate Government funding will lead to higher fees for parents, reductions in staff pay and closures in those essential early years settings, which would not only harm working families but risk deepening the staffing crisis in the sector. What reassurance can the Minister give early years and childcare providers in Eastleigh and across the country that they will not be adversely affected?

Raising employer national insurance is a tax on jobs that will hurt small businesses and essential services. The Government must reconsider their approach. The early years sector, primary care and small businesses are not staffed by those with the broadest shoulders. This weekend we have Small Business Saturday, a chance to celebrate the incredible work of small businesses, who do so much for our communities. They need our support. The Government must think again and support working families. They must rethink this unhelpful policy.

I call the shadow Minister.

It is a great pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. I pay tribute to and thank all colleagues from both sides of the House for their contributions. I will try to touch on some of their points as I go through.

Just nine months ago, I opened the Second Reading of a Conservative national insurance Bill that cut taxes for millions of working people across the country. Today, we have before us a Labour national insurance Bill that will take the tax burden to the highest levels in history on the backs of working people. That is the stark difference that a Labour Government make, but it is not the change that people voted for.

Nine months ago, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told the House that the then Opposition supported our tax cut, but barely three hours later, she and her Labour colleagues remarkably failed to vote for it and back up their words with actions. Now we know why: it is Labour’s playbook to say one thing as loudly as possible and then do the exact opposite as quietly as it can.

On the Government’s tax policy, does my hon. Friend think it is concerning that the Chancellor today refused to rule out further tax rises in future Budgets?

Absolutely. We all heard what the Chancellor said at the Confederation of British Industry conference. It is remarkable that the Prime Minister will not back up her words, and even more remarkable that the Chancellor herself would not back up her words today at Treasury questions.

The British people see the Bill for what it is: the biggest broken promise of them all, and there are plenty to choose from. It is a good job the Chancellor has experience on a complaints desk, because, quite frankly, there are quite a lot coming in at the moment—not least from the business community, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) highlighted so well in his speech. Before the election, the Chancellor embarked on what she referred to as the “smoked salmon offensive” with British business; now the election is over, she has dropped the smoked salmon and is focusing on just being offensive.

Today’s Bill will introduce tax rises on working people in business that were never declared before the election. It is a double whammy, as the Federation of Small Businesses has said in Lincolnshire: it introduces not just the rate rise, but a reduction in the threshold. This tax is the only major tax that is paid exclusively by working people. It is a £25 billion tax rise on jobs. The OBR makes it clear that by 2027, 76% of the total cost of this tax increase will be passed on to working people through lower wages and higher prices, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) said in what I thought was a very thoughtful speech for the SNP.

As I said at Treasury questions this morning, the OBR says this is a tax on working people; the IFS says this is a tax on working people; even the Resolution Foundation says this is a tax on working people. By anyone’s measure—be in no doubt—this is a manifesto breach the public will not forget. That is clear.

What is not so clear any more is what this Labour party stands for. The Budget was an attack not just on working people, but on the very lowest paid working people, according to the IFS. This is a fundamentally regressive policy, leaving many out in the cold and giving businesses no choice but to freeze hiring and freeze wages. It will hit others, too. It will hit the doctors and the nurses working in general practice and social care, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set out in his speech. It will hit charities and voluntary organisations, with Marie Curie expecting that it will cost the charity £3 million next year alone—all part of a £1.4 billion bombshell to hit all charities next year. It will hit hospices, homeless support groups and disability charities, which are all warning they face reducing headcount and limiting services. This is not what the British people voted for.

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as many of my colleagues are, that the Government will not give the full details on compensation for the non-core public sector activities that are the lifeblood of the NHS because, if they gave them the compensation that they need, the net benefit from the tax would be so risibly small as to demonstrate that it is utterly pointless and a concoction that could come only from a dysfunctional Treasury like this one?

There is really nothing to add to that. The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech and at Treasury questions—it is a very important point.

In just six months, we have hit the highest tax burden in history. Debt is up, with debt interest payments above £100 billion—for the first time ever—in every year of the forecast. Today’s Bill will result in lower wages, higher prices and a tougher employment market. I urge this Government to reverse course, but I will not hold my breath. Instead, I think I can predict what the Minister is going to say. She is going to say three things when she stands up to speak. First, she is going to try to blame the Conservative party—blaming everybody else for this clear political choice. She will not explain the £8 billion on GB Energy—an energy company that will not actually reduce bills or produce any energy—or the £10 billion on public pay splurges that come with no reform on productivity, or £7 billion on rebranding the national infrastructure bank. Perhaps if the Government dropped those pet projects—which will not actually grow the economy—they would have a little more money and would not have to screw with small businesses and make people unemployed.

Secondly, the Minister will forget that she is in government and that I am in opposition. She will ask me what my party would do instead. To that, I simply say that we would fund the NHS well, but we would also reform it.

Would the shadow Minister increase borrowing or increase a different tax, or are there some public spending cuts that he would like to announce?

I hope the British people are listening to this: none of those things. I remind the hon. Gentleman, although he was not here, that NHS spending increased by 45% in cash terms in the last Parliament under a Conservative Government. The issue is not spending—the Labour party will never get this—but reforming the NHS, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said. It is about growing our economy faster than the Labour party would grow it, according to the OBR, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said. We would tackle the welfare bill—£12 billion of savings that we set out in government—and we would boost productivity, because if public sector productivity returned to pre-pandemic levels, £20 billion would be saved.

Finally, the Minister will try to suggest that she is bringing stability, even though businesses and consumer confidence have plummeted ever since she and her colleagues took office. Let us remind ourselves of what she means by stability. In just a few months, we have seen a Downing Street chief of staff sacked, a Cabinet Minister resign, a Back-Bench MP quit the party, key manifesto promises like cutting energy bills by £300 completely dropped, a delayed spending review, fiddled fiscal rules and, just this week, complete confusion about whether the Prime Minister will drop his economic growth pledge. It is all so predictable, yet so damaging to our economy. The Bill breaks Labour’s manifesto. We cannot back it. We will not vote for it. We urge the Government to think again

It is an honour to close the debate on behalf of the Government. When the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) loses his seat, he can work as my speechwriter, because he is right that I am going to say all the things he said, but I will come on to that soon.

Let me start by thanking hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. There were some powerful speeches, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). .

Before I come to the specific points raised in this debate, I want to reiterate the purpose of the Bill. Our priority in the Bill is to restore stability to our economy, repair the public finances to fix our economy, and support long-term economic growth. The Chancellor recognised that to do that, the Government needed to make difficult decisions. That is why under the measures in the Bill, employers are being asked to contribute more. First, the Bill provides for a rise in the rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%. Secondly, it provides for a decrease in the secondary threshold for employers from £9,000 per employee to £5,000. Thirdly, it provides for changes to the employment allowance, to increase it from £5,000 to £10,500, and removes the £100,000 eligibility cap, so that the vast majority of employers benefit.

The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked at the start of the debate where the extra money raised will go. Let me remind him that the Government uncovered a challenging fiscal and spending inheritance with £22 million of in-year pressure on public finances. We have taken difficult but necessary decisions to fix the foundations of our economy and to fix public services. The Budget provided additional day-to-day funding to stabilise and support public services. Day-to-day funding will now grow at an average of 3.3% in real terms over this year and next, compared to 0.2% under the last Government’s plans.

A £200 million black hole in the Scottish Government’s core finances, rising to £450 million when partner agencies are included—what kind of stability does the Minister think that will bring to public services in Scotland?

If the hon. Gentleman is patient and listens carefully to my speech, I will come on to the Scottish Government, so he does not need to worry.

The increase in employment NICs raises revenues for the NHS and increases funding for contributory benefits such as the state pension, easing wider pressures on public finances. It is part of the Government’s announcement of an additional £22.6 billion of day-to-day spending over two years for the Department of Health and Social Care, including the NHS.

Can the Minister tell the House which decision was harder, giving an inflation-busting pay rise to union paymasters or cutting the winter fuel payment?

The best decision that we have ever made in government is putting money back into the pockets of working people.

Questions were raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the NHS. The Government will provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional ER NICs costs only. That will apply to central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers—GPs, dentists, pharmacies and eyecare provider—are valued independent contractors who provide nearly £20 billion worth of NHS services. Every year we consult each sector both about what services they provide and about the money to which providers are entitled in return under their contracts. As in previous years, this issue will be dealt with as part of that process.

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my earlier questions. Rather than taking with one hand and giving back with the other, would the Minister support moves to exempt all health and care providers?

The Department of Health and Social Care will confirm funding for general practice for 2025-26 as part of the usual GP contract process later in the year, through consultation with the sector. I understand the concerns about the impact on the healthcare sector, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the Department of Health will continue to engage with GPs, dentists and pharmacists as part of the usual contract process, and that changes in NICs will be taken into account in those discussions.

Let me now turn to the rant, I would say, rather than speech, from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). I was not quite sure what question he was getting to, but he did ask very clearly whether the Chancellor understood the impact of the economic policies that she was making, and whether she would remain in her place. Considering those questions, I wondered what he thought about economics as a whole, so I decided to look into him. Not long ago, he said:

“I have worked with Liz Truss on many occasions…I believe that her economic position…and her parliamentary experience make her the best option to lead our country.”

Will the Minister give way?

With pleasure.

I stand by the comments that I made. [Interruption.] I do. I fundamentally believe that Liz Truss would be a better Prime Minister than the one we have now.

If you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that a lettuce would have better judgment.

I turn to the devolved Governments. The Government will provide Departments and other public sector employers with support for additional ER NICs costs only. The funding will be allocated to Departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way. The overall outcome of the Barnett formula is that all the devolved Governments will receive at least 20% more funding per person than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. The Scottish Government will receive £47.7 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £3.4 billion through the operation of the Barnett formula. The Welsh Government will receive £21 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £1.7 billion through the operation of the Barnett formula.

The Minister is being very generous in taking a second intervention from me. I realise that the bar for credibility in the Treasury is very low right now, but she hoots and toots about the level of the block grant for the Scottish Government. In what universe does the block grant go down year on year? Of course it is higher than in previous years. Has she got the faintest idea how it works?

I do have the faintest idea how it works, which is why I am on this side of the House and the hon. Gentleman is on that side. That is why I am a Treasury Minister and he is not, and probably never will be.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke about hospitality. Without any Government intervention, retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely in April 2025, creating a cliff edge for business. [Interruption.] I know the truth hurts, which is why the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. Our Government have decided to offer a 40% discount to RHL properties by introducing a cash cap of £110,000 per business in 2025-26, and we have frozen the small business multiplier. This package is worth over £1.6 billion in 2025-26 and is aimed at supporting the most vulnerable businesses, ensuring that over 250,000 RHL properties receive the full 40% support.

Will the Minister give way?

I am reluctant to do so, but I will.

I thank the Minister for giving way. The OBR had to issue a correction to table 3.2 in chapter 3 of its report. Originally, there was RDEL compensation for public sector employees and for adult social care. The correction was made to reduce the sums by £800 million, typically per year, for RDEL compensation just for public sector organisations. Why did the correction need to be made, when was it made, and why was the OBR told so late that social care was not getting the support that it clearly needs?

As far as I am concerned, the current numbers are the correct ones.

The Minister mentions business rates and the small business multiplier. Will she confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?

That is under review, and we will come back to the hon. Gentleman soon.

I turn to the questions from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) about childcare providers. She may be aware that I served on the shadow Education team for a long time. I realise the value of early years providers, and I know that they drive economic growth and break down barriers to opportunity. We have committed to making childcare more affordable and more accessible, which is why we promised in our manifesto to deliver the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents, and to open 3,000 new or expanded nurseries by upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. However, I say to the hon. Member that the Government inherited the worst economic circumstances since the second world war, and our first step must be to fix the foundations of our economy. In spite of the challenges, the Chancellor announced in her Budget significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places, meaning that the total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26.

I am grateful to have had this opportunity to respond to the questions that have been raised today. I also want to thank my officials for their work on bringing the Bill to the House. Before I finish, however, I want to answer a question that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) asked in his speech: what is the mission of this Government? Well, let me tell him. This Government’s mission is economic stability, restoring our public services, a thriving workplace, making sure that we have a strong education system and strong public services, putting more money in working people’s pockets, and fixing the foundations of our economy. The mission is to rebuild Britain. The Conservatives left a mess, and we will do a better job than them. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.