Debate contribution: Front-line Services: Employers’ National Insurance Increase

Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on 13 January 2025.

MLA

Ms Diana Armstrong

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

13 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Front-line Services: Employers’ National Insurance Increase

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4738698

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the proposer of the motion. Like others, I support it. The motion highlights the urgent need to protect businesses and community and voluntary sector organisations that provide vital front-line services across Northern Ireland from the disastrous impact of the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. Many businesses are still struggling to process what that means for their long-term sustainability and for the future retention of employees. There is no doubt that a range of really important sectors will be adversely impacted on by the changes. That is particularly the case for sectors that have independent providers with large workforces, such as domiciliary care and the childcare sector, which was mentioned. They are often dependent on public funding but do not have the same certainties and guarantees, such as day-to-day operational costs. I will focus on public-sector employees. His Majesty's Treasury said at the time of the Budget that it would work with the public sector to support it with additional costs. It is assumed that recurrent funding will be received for 2025-26 to cover the costs. The Treasury has said that it is compensating public-sector employers for employers' National Insurance contributions bills through increases to their budgets, but there is a big difference between who is eligible and who really should be eligible. I would welcome clarity from the Finance Minister on the question of compensation for the public sector. For instance, healthcare providers will be greatly affected by the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. Amongst those are general dental practitioners, GPs, community pharmacies, care homes and hospices, all of which have voiced major concerns about the impact that the increases will have on them. As public contractors, any business that undertakes more than 50% public work is ineligible for employment allowance. As has been highlighted by other Members, the additional costs imposed by the increase in National Insurance contributions threaten the long-term sustainability of many vital front-line services. Those were the very services that stepped up to the mark during the COVID pandemic, and, at the time, that underlined how much society depends on those services. Is it right, now, that those services should face threats to their sustainability? It is surely incumbent on the Labour Government to recognise the role of vital front-line services and to protect them where possible. As it stands, the providers of some of our most important services, such as those that I have mentioned, face a great deal of uncertainty. Therefore, there needs to be absolute clarity on the definition of "public sector" adopted by HM Treasury. I will, of course, support the motion and the amendment. However, I call on the Minister of Finance to seek assurances from His Majesty's Treasury about the definition of "public sector", in order to ensure that those front-line services are protected from Labour's disastrous autumn Budget.

473 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:43 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification