Chair of the Treasury Committee, Harriett Baldwin welcomes the reduction in National Insurance Contributions which will address two long-standing challenges for the UK economy: slow productivity growth and getting people back to work following the pandemic.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I am not sure that I have ever heard a more grudging shadow Front Bench speech on measures that the Opposition support. They support them so wholeheartedly today that none of their Back Benchers has shown up to speak to them.
I endorse the measures in the legislation. The Chief Secretary is right to point to the turning point that the UK economy has reached this year, thanks to the steps taken a year ago to ensure that fiscal policy did not cut across the central bank’s aim to reduce inflation to its target. Thanks to that, inflation, which might have been as high as 13% last year, has fallen to 4.6%. That means that today, the earnings of the average UK worker are rising faster than the rate of inflation. We are seeing real earnings growth. That is the turning point that I am talking about.
The shadow Minister and the Chief Secretary both talked about the choices that the Chancellor could make on this occasion. In the evidence that the Treasury Committee took this week on the autumn statement, we saw the clear impact of the Chancellor’s choices on two long-standing challenges for the UK economy: slow productivity growth and the fact that not everyone has returned to work since the pandemic. When we get to the Finance Bill, I will expatiate further on the supply-side measures on the labour market and permanent full expensing, but today I will focus on the national insurance contributions element, which the Office for Budget Responsibility also considered to be a supply-side measure.
In the evidence that we took, we heard from the member of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Professor David Miles, that the choice to go for the national insurance contribution reduction in the autumn statement created a “definite positive” as an incentive to work. The OBR forecast that it will bring close to 100,000 full-time equivalent extra workers back into the workforce. That is so important. Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted in his evidence that, compared with a similar cut in income tax rates, a cut to national insurance is more progressive. It benefits people in work, but only on their earnings up to £50,000. That is important context for the choice that the Chancellor took.
I also welcome the simplification of taxes—a concept our Committee is committed to. Far too many things in our tax system act as disincentives to doing an extra hour of work. There are too many complicated withdrawal rates. The steps taken on class 2 and class 4 contributions represent a simplification of the tax system. Interestingly, we were told in our evidence session that the changes to class 2 and class 4 reduce
“the incentive for people to incorporate to gain a tax advantage.”
We should have a tax system that is broadly neutral on those two things.
Professor Miles told us that he thinks that the national insurance cuts are “unambiguously” a more positive incentive to work. The Office for Budget Responsibility does not see the measures as inflationary. He also said that
“some people at the margin who thought it perhaps was not worth working might now be persuaded to actively try to get a job”,
and that the measures will help retain people in the labour force.
To conclude my short remarks on the narrow measures in the Bill, I wanted to focus on the evidence that we have received on the choice that the Chancellor took on national insurance, and how that is very much focused on the structural challenges that the UK economy faces.