debates/debates2025-11-04b conversation_7
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-04)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-04b conversation_7

Gareth Bacon:What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on businesses. \p Rachel Reeves: The previous Government left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, and in the Budget last year I had to take urgent action to ensure our public finances were on a firm footing and to properly fund our public services, including a £29 billion investment every year in our national health service. The Opposition cannot support more investment in our public services unless they support the tax changes to pay for it. \p Wendy Morton: I am not convinced that that answer went anywhere near my question. Family businesses are the lifeblood of communities and constituencies such as mine. Last week, I met Family Business UK to discuss how the Government’s national insurance hike and restrictions to business property relief are forcing businesses to pause investment, think twice about taking on more staff and, in some cases, even to close their doors. Ahead of the Budget, will the Chancellor meet me and representatives from family businesses to seek ways in which the Government will work with, not against, these really key businesses? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the right hon. Lady for that question, and 43% of employers—almost 1 million—will pay no employer national insurance this year. That is an increase because of the changes we made to the employment allowance. Over half of employers with NIC liabilities will see no change, or will gain overall, and businesses can employ younger people—those aged under 21 and apprentices under 25—without NICs. However, the Conservatives must decide whether they will stick with this change to national insurance. If they are not going to, they will have to admit that they will not be able to put the money into the national health service. \p Joe Robertson: According to the British Retail Consortium, the Chancellor’s last Budget caused a £7 billion cost to retail, leading to shop closures, declining high streets and job losses. If the Chancellor will not acknowledge the damage she has caused, how will she go about rectifying it? Can I recommend that she starts with the 100% business rate relief put forward by the shadow Chancellor? \p Rachel Reeves: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. In his own constituency in the Isle of Wight, the six-monthly waiting list figures show that 5% fewer people are waiting for 18 weeks or longer. That is only possible because of the money we put into the NHS because of the tax changes we made. On retail sales and the impact on shops, retail sales have increased for the last four months in a row, with the most recent numbers for August and September outpacing expectations. \p Gareth Bacon: It was always blindingly obvious that increasing employer national insurance would lead to an increase in business costs, which would lead to higher prices hitting working people directly, and to rises in inflation. Sure enough, inflation has risen steadily under this Government, and it is now at almost twice its recommended level. At the last Budget, we were told it  was necessary to raise taxes on businesses by £25 billion to pay for the NHS, and large amounts of money have indeed been paid to unionised workers, but just yesterday the Office for National Statistics announced that NHS productivity had fallen by 1.5% since Labour took office. Can the Chancellor explain what exactly my Orpington businesses are paying more tax for? \p Rachel Reeves: In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks for an appointment has also fallen. That is exactly what that money is being used for. He needs to be clear, and so do those on the Opposition Front Bench: if they want to reverse the increase to national insurance, they must also accept that there will be less money for our national health service. That is a choice, and it would be interesting to hear whether it is the Opposition’s choice. \p Catherine West: On 6 December, Small Business Saturday will have us all out in our constituencies supporting small businesses. Following the announcement this morning about the need to enhance productivity, what measures will the Treasury be introducing to assist small businesses in the current tough climate? \p Rachel Reeves: My hon. Friend is a strong champion for people in Hornsey and Wood Green, including small businesses. Last year at the Budget, we set out the principles in the consultation on business rates reform. Our principle is to make it easier for small businesses and high street businesses, while making sure that the online retail giants pay their fair share of tax. We will be setting out more information on our reformed business rate system to help our high streets and help our small businesses on 26 November. \p Bill Esterson: The Conservative party gave us austerity, Brexit and Liz Truss, including high interest rates and high inflation. This Government, so far, have delivered the highest growth in the G7, five interest rate cuts and record high levels of investment. Is it not the truth that the Conservative party, over 14 years, was the reason businesses were struggling? \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is just a rant, with nothing relevant to the question. \p Connor Naismith: Opposition Members spend a lot of time complaining about the difficult decisions taken by this Labour Government, so I wonder whether the Chancellor can remind them what we have been able to do for public services and infrastructure as a result of this Government’s revenue-raising policies. \p Rachel Reeves: That is exactly the case. The tax changes we made at the Budget last year enabled us to put £29 billion extra a year into the NHS, but also to roll out free school meals and free breakfast clubs for young people. That is the difference this Government are making. On capital spending, because of the changes I made to our fiscal rules, we are able to invest £120 billion more on our energy security, our digital infrastructure and new homes through our industrial strategy. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Daisy Cooper: Analysis by UKHospitality suggests that more than half the job losses in the UK since last year’s Budget have come from its sector. That is further evidence that the jobs tax has been bad for growth and bad for job opportunities. We Liberal Democrats have set out fairer ways of raising revenue and going for growth, so rather than the Government suggesting that we have not done so, can I instead ask them: will they use the Budget to consult on a new lower national insurance contribution band to create opportunities for part-time workers, especially in hospitality? \p Rachel Reeves: We increased the employment allowance at the Budget last year. That is, rightly, agnostic between part-time and full-time workers. That is why 865,000 businesses will not be paying national insurance at all this year—an increase to help our smallest businesses. Employment is up 358,000 so far this year; that is very different from the picture that the hon. Lady just tried to set out.