Hansard·Commons Chamber·Vol. 759

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Wednesday, 8 January 2025

10 contributions4 members

Contributions

  1. Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)Conservative

    5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on the science and technology sectors.

    View contribution permalink →

  2. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)Labour

    The Government have increased investment in R&D to record levels. We have also repaired the public finances, including the black hole left by the previous Administration. We have done so by protecting the smallest businesses through the impact of doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will pay nothing in additional tax.

    View contribution permalink →

  3. Rebecca PaulConservative

    I thank the Secretary of State for his response. However, universities, which are at the heart of the UK’s research ecosystem, face an additional £372 million in annual costs due to the rise in employer national insurance. That threatens their ability to fund cutting-edge research, recruit top talent and support early career researchers. Does he recognise the detrimental impact that will have on research in this country? Will he explore measures to ensure that our global competitiveness in science and innovation is not undermined?

    View contribution permalink →

  4. Peter KyleLabour

    We have found ways to get new investment into universities, which we are putting on a solid financial footing. This is just the start. We always knew that we could not fix all the problems that we inherited from that last Administration in six months, but we are finding ways to take that great start forward to get new investment into universities. I reassure the House that the war on universities by that Administration has ended.

    View contribution permalink →

  5. Mr SpeakerSpeaker

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    View contribution permalink →

  6. Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)Conservative

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. “Companies like ours will be less incentivised to grow”. That is the conclusion of Paul Taylor, founder of British tech unicorn Thought Machine, which employs more than 500 people. Britain is now missing out on new jobs and investment as a direct result of Labour’s national insurance jobs tax. When the Chancellor started punishing our tech sector, the Secretary of State failed to stand up to her. Why?

    View contribution permalink →

  7. Peter KyleLabour

    We have put the public finances on a solid footing. Our economy is now stable in a way that has not been the case for 14 years. The Conservatives want all the benefits of the last Budget without saying how they will pay for any of it. Until they do, they will not be taken seriously by anyone, including the business that the hon. Gentleman referenced.

    View contribution permalink →

  8. Alan MakConservative

    The truth is that the Labour Government are failing our tech workers, because they do not care about our tech sector. Last September, Paul said that he was very keen to list Thought Machine in London instead of New York, and one of his preconditions before listing is being able to grow the business as much as possible. Why did the Secretary of State allow the Chancellor to make growth harder for Britain’s tech sector at the Budget?

    View contribution permalink →

  9. Peter KyleLabour

    I think the hon. Gentleman missed the investment summit that the Government held just before Christmas, at which a record £60 billion was invested into this country, £24 billion of which was AI-related. That is almost as much going directly into AI as was committed in total at the previous Government’s investment summit. This Government are unlocking investment; the previous Administration wrecked our economy and public services, and failed to secure faith in our economy for foreign companies to invest in this country.

    View contribution permalink →

Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 4801989.