Baroness Merron

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, it is essential that the changes we hope to make in this Bill resolve some of the existing workforce issues within our NHS. I say at the outset that the Bill will not be a silver bullet, and I do not wish to present it as such, but the changes it introduces for foundation and specialty training will lead to a more sustainable medical workforce that can better meet the health needs of our population.

I am most grateful to all those who have engaged with us, including the devolved Governments, to recognise the shared challenges that we face across the United Kingdom. My thanks are also due to noble Lords from across the House for their constructive contributions, time and interest in meeting me and officials. I am also most grateful for the cross-party support that has been demonstrated, both in the other place and in my discussions with the Front Benches in this House. A number of organisations have also expressed their support, including: the BMA, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

The NHS is beginning to show signs of recovery, following a period of unprecedented strain. Nothing in the NHS functions without its workforce and I am grateful for the dedication and professionalism of our workforce. Supporting, valuing and planning for that workforce is fundamental and, I know, something that your Lordships’ House takes a great interest in—and rightly so. Because the NHS depends on its workforce, we are developing a long-term approach to workforce planning, aligned with the ambitions set out in the 10-year health plan published in July, which set out the intent of this Bill.

That work will culminate in the publication of a 10-year workforce plan in the spring, setting out how we intend to ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills. Staff have been clear for some time that they want change, not only in absolute numbers but in how they are trained, supported and treated at work. We have heard from many who have been exceptionally frustrated by the current application process. There are challenges within medical training that cannot be addressed without legislative change, and that is why we are taking action with this Bill. I am absolutely delighted that my noble friends Lord Duvall and Lord Roe have chosen to make their maiden speeches in this important debate. I, like all noble Lords, very much look forward to hearing from them.

One of the most pressing of those challenges is the severe bottleneck in postgraduate medical training. For several years now, the number of applicants for foundation and specialty training places has grown far more rapidly than the number of available posts. In 2019, there were around 12,000 applicants for 9,000 specialty training places. In 2020, visa restrictions were lifted, and we find this year that this has soared to nearly 40,000 applicants for 10,000 places, with significantly more overseas-trained applicants than UK-trained ones.

This has created intense competition, uncertainty and frustration for many at the start of their careers. At the same time our NHS has become increasingly reliant on international recruitment. This Government deeply value the contribution made by doctors from all around the world, many of whom have played and continue to play a vital role in patient care, and nothing in in this Bill diminishes that contribution. However, it is neither sustainable nor ethically comfortable for the UK to depend so heavily on recruiting doctors from countries that themselves face serious workforce challenges while a growing number of UK-trained doctors struggle to access training posts. Competition for medical staff has never been fiercer. The World Health Organization estimates a shortfall of 11 million health workers by 2030. Shoring up our own workforce will limit our exposure to such global pressures without depriving other countries of their homegrown talent, and this Bill seeks to address that imbalance.

Let me turn to the Bill itself. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill gives effect to the Government’s commitment to place UK-trained doctors and other defined priority groups at the front of the queue for medical training posts. It does so while continuing to allow internationally trained doctors to apply for and contribute to the NHS. Let me emphasise that the Bill is about prioritisation. It is not about excluding people, but it is unashamedly about prioritisation. For the UK foundation programme, the Bill requires that places are allocated to UK medical graduates and those in priority groups before being offered to other eligible applicants. For specialty training, it introduces prioritisation initially at the offer stage for 2026 and from 2027 at both the short-listing and offer stages. That will significantly reduce the level of competition being faced by UK-trained applicants, and it will provide greater certainty at a critical point in their career.

Internationally trained doctors with significant NHS experience will continue to be prioritised for specialty training, recognising the service that they have given. This year, immigration status will be used as a practical proxy for NHS experience in order to allow prioritisation to begin swiftly. For following years, we have taken powers in regulations to enable us to refine this approach in consultation with key partners. I have been asked by noble Lords what this means for those with refugee status. This status is not a stand-alone priority group, although refugees will be prioritised for specialty training in 2026 if they fall within another priority category, such as holding indefinite leave to remain or having completed the foundation programme. Refugees who do not fall within a prioritised group may still apply for specialty training posts and the Bill will not change their eligibility to apply for locally employed doctors’ roles.

I am seeking to address up front some of the concerns that will quite rightly be raised in the course of the debate. One of those is a concern I have heard about why British citizens who have graduated from medical schools outside the UK will not be in the priority group, including some doctors who would be eligible only for provisional GMC registration. I understand the reasons why this is being raised, and I have heard how some would prefer all British citizens, in a blanket sense, to be prioritised. The problem with that is that it would undermine the very intent of the legislation, which is to enable effective workforce planning and the development of our future medical workforce.

The principle is to create a sustainable domestic workforce. It is not about where a student is born; it is about where they are trained, and the fact is that UK-trained doctors are more likely to work in the NHS for longer. In addition, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. Student intakes and graduate outputs of overseas medical schools are not included in our domestic workforce planning. If we prioritised British citizens in a blanket sense for foundation training places regardless of where they studied, that would undermine our key aim to build UK-trained capacity while ensuring that we do not provide more foundation programme places than we need. I reiterate that this Bill is about prioritisation and not exclusion. All eligible applicants will still be able to apply and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers, which we expect to be the case on the basis of our long experience.

I have also listened to colleagues expressing concerns around the treatment of applicants graduating in Malta. The UK’s long-standing partnership with Malta on healthcare is valued and will continue. Doctors training in Malta will still be able to come to the UK to gain NHS experience to support their training, for example through fellowship schemes. These arrangements are not affected by the Bill. However, as I stated earlier, for recruitment to specialty training places in the UK, the Government assess that it is important to prioritise to ensure a sustainable workforce that meets health needs.

I turn to the matter of public health specialists, who are particularly identified in the Bill. Public health is a unique medical specialty that draws applicants from medicine and other professional backgrounds who all undergo the same rigorous training. All public health specialists, regardless of professional background, complete the same rigorous medical specialty training programme and are subject to the same high professional standards. The Bill excludes from prioritisation any specialty programmes wholly in the field of public health, as it would undermine the multidisciplinary public health specialist workforce. The Government will monitor the impact on the public health specialist training programme, which currently accepts very small numbers of international medical graduates.

I am aware that there are concerns relating to terms and conditions and mobility for some specialists. We have set out the actions we will take to make the NHS a better and great employer. However, a focus on the NHS alone will not support the whole health workforce, as many public health specialists work outside the NHS with differing employment arrangements. But we are committed to working with the BMA, employers and professional bodies to make public health careers more attractive.

On timing, the Bill includes provisions to allow prioritisation to apply to the current application cycle, with posts commencing this August. That requires Royal Assent by 5 March. It is therefore important to seek timely passage for this Bill to avoid disruption for trainees who need sufficient time to find somewhere to live, sort out childcare and arrange any other aspects of their lives before their posts start, and for NHS trusts that are planning the front-line services. I hear the concerns of some noble Lords about the impact on those applying in the current application cycle, particularly where applicants report that they did not know how prioritisation might affect them. As I said earlier, these concerns are understandable, and they have been carefully considered. However, delaying action would only prolong the current problem by further entrenching the existing imbalance in training competition and it would weaken our ability to plan a sustainable workforce.

The commencement provisions provide necessary flexibility, ensuring that implementation can be carried out in an orderly and workable way, taking account of operational realities. On that point, there is a material consideration, which I am sure will be raised and understandably so, about whether it is possible to proceed if strike action is ongoing. The disruption strikes cause, and the pressure they put on resources, would undoubtedly make it a lot harder operationally to deliver the important measures in this Bill. It is our intention to commence as soon as we can, subject to the Bill’s passage through Parliament, but it is vital to have a safeguard to ensure that the systems planning and operational capacity required for successful implementation are firmly in place.

I conclude by saying that the Bill will not solve every workforce challenge, but it is a very important step towards a more coherent, ethical and sustainable approach to medical training and workforce planning: something that has been called for for many years.

It is estimated that four resident doctors will be competing for every specialty training post in 2026. With the delivery of this Bill, this number can reduce to two resident doctors per place. British taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every single year. It will be by better aligning public investment, training capacity and long-term service needs that the Bill will give UK-trained doctors a fair chance to serve in the health service they train to support, and to do so in a way that benefits us, the public, across the country. I beg to move.

Baroness Merron (Lab)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate for the support given, including just now by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, to working with us, because I think there is general recognition that we have a problem that needs to be dealt with. I am very glad, as I said at the outset, to have been the Minister at the Dispatch Box when my noble friends Lord Duvall and Lord Roe made their moving maiden speeches. They both have many years of distinction in public service, and I know that that will continue as they bring their own unique experiences and views on the world to your Lordships’ House, which will be much enriched by their presence.

A strong and consistent theme has come through today’s debate: a shared concern for the well-being of NHS staff, recognition of the importance of workforce planning and the need for a sustainable health service. I am grateful for the thoughtful questions, and I will endeavour to answer as many as possible—I have already referred to some in my opening remarks. I will of course review the debate, as always, and I will be pleased to write to noble Lords on those matters I was not able to get to.

This legislation is about giving future generations of doctors trained in the UK a clearer and more secure pathway into NHS careers. It is about sustainable workforce planning and, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to, about fairness—to those who train here, to taxpayers who fund that training and to patients. As many noble Lords acknowledged, significant public investment goes into medical education every year, so it is right that we ask ourselves how that investment can be best aligned to what we need.

I have listened closely to the concerns raised today, particularly about the Bill’s impact on those who will not be prioritised. To reiterate, the way I look at this is that the Bill is about prioritisation, not exclusion. I assure your Lordships’ House that all eligible applicants will still be able to apply, and they will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received theirs. We absolutely expect that to be the case; that is our experience. To be more specific, there are likely to be opportunities in specialties such as general practice, core psychiatry and internal medicine, which historically attract fewer applicants than the groups we are prioritising for 2026. We still need those people.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about possible unintended consequences for the UK’s international reputation. I believe our proud history of welcoming colleagues from across the world will continue and, as I have just said, international colleagues can, of course, continue to apply after prioritisation has taken place and there are vacancies.

On new specialty training posts, we have committed to creating 1,000 of these new posts over the next three years, focusing on specialties where there is greatest need. This is on top of creating 250 additional GP training places each year. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised questions about the availability of training places. Expansion will be matched with training capacity. We have not yet confirmed which specialties will receive the new posts, but we will ensure that expansion is targeted where patient demand and workforce pressures are the most acute.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made reference to the cancer plan. It was a bright spot in today’s news—I am sure all noble Lords will understand —and has not had the airtime it ought to have had, so I am most grateful to him. What I can tell the noble Lord about the creation of new specialty training posts is that there will be a focus on those with greatest need. We will set out steps in due course and I look forward to keeping the noble Lord informed. Non-prioritised graduates will also continue to have routes into NHS careers through locally employed doctor roles, gaining experience that can support future progression and prioritisation.

Let me turn to some of the specific points that were raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked about British citizens who have graduated from medical schools outside the UK and will not be in the priority group. I understand why these concerns are being raised but, going back to the core of the Bill, to prioritise them would undermine our aim to build UK-trained capacity while ensuring we do not provide any more foundation programme places than we need. To reiterate, UK-trained doctors are more likely to work in the NHS for longer, and retention is an issue that is much discussed in your Lordships’ House. They will be better equipped to deliver tailored healthcare that suits the UK’s population because of what they understand. Reference was made to the provision extending also to the Republic of Ireland graduates. Their inclusion ensures consistency in workforce planning across both jurisdictions, which reflects the long-standing protocol rights for movement and employment. That was something in which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was particularly interested.

On specialty training places starting in 2026, British citizens will be prioritised, because that is one of the prioritised immigration statuses being used as a proxy to indicate someone who is likely to have significant experience of the NHS. Why? Because applications for posts starting in 2026 have already been made. Prioritisation is only at offer stage because shortlisting is under way, so it is a timing matter about implementation. From 2027, immigration status will no longer automatically determine priority, but we have the ability to set out in regulations the persons who will be prioritised based on criteria which indicate they are likely to have significant NHS experience, or based on their immigration status. As I said earlier, we will be engaging with our partners to work out how best to define that.

On the point made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevens, about graduates of overseas campuses, including Malta, which I will turn to presently, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, the UK foundation programme applications for 2026 show that there are almost 300 applicants from these overseas campuses, of whom 152 are UK nationals. This is a substantial number and, if we were to do what is being asked—to prioritise graduates of UK overseas campuses—our estimation is that this could encourage universities to establish further international partnerships which would simply increase pressure still further. It also risks creating a loophole that would encourage new overseas partnerships to seek preferential access to the foundation programme across the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, picked out Liechtenstein in particular, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to, we are talking about the EFTA countries, which include Liechtenstein, and they are prioritised simply because of existing international agreements that we are obliged to honour. However, in practice, not all these countries are going to have eligible applicants.

Baroness Merron (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am coming on to this, but the agreement in respect of Malta that I would refer to is a reciprocal health agreement. It does not apply in this area. It is about the reciprocal provision of healthcare. I will turn to Malta, however, after saying a brief word about overseas campuses generally.

Just to re-emphasise, overseas campus students are not part of the numbers that the Government are setting. We do not have that control. If we prioritised those graduates as well, that would eat away at the very core of the Bill and the things people actually want us to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wanted an indication of how this would all align with the international education strategy. The Bill does not conflict with this, because the international education strategy supports universities expanding internationally. It does not prevent UK universities delivering medical degrees overseas. That strategy stays in place.

I turn to Malta for the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada—

Baroness Merron (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As I said at the outset, I will endeavour to answer all questions, but where I do not have an answer, particularly where I want to look at them in closer detail, I will be very pleased to write, of course, as always.

Still turning to Malta—which is a pleasure—let me say straight away that we do have a long-standing partnership with Malta on healthcare. It is valued and it will continue. Doctors who are training in Malta will still come to the UK, as they do now, to gain NHS experience to support their training, for example through fellowship schemes. This is not affected by the Bill.

As I discussed with the noble Baroness just yesterday, senior officials in my department have met with the High Commissioner of Malta to the United Kingdom in order to assure him of this. But it is important to prioritise in order to ensure a sustainable workforce that meets its health needs. Again, that is at the core of the Bill. Malta has its own foundation school. This is not part of the UK foundation programme: it is affiliated with the UK foundation programme office which administers the UK programme. That means—this point has been made to me—the Malta Foundation School delivers the same curriculum and offers the same education and training as the UK foundation programme. The Bill will not impact this affiliation or the other ways in which work carries on closely with the Government of Malta when it comes to health.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also made the point that he believed small numbers of students were impacted. I have referred to the 300 applicants from overseas campuses. I hope it is understood that that is why there is a significance there.

If there are other matters that I have not addressed to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, I will be very pleased to review this, because I suspect there were some more points to address. I will be very pleased to write to her to give her comfort in this regard.

I move on now to the impact on doctors who were part way through the application process—a point spoken to by noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Mohammed, Lord Clement-Jones, and other noble Lords. As I stated earlier, delaying implementation of the Bill until next year, which would be required if we were to respond as requested, would mean another full year where we are not tackling the issue of bottlenecks in medical training. It seemed to me that the feeling in the House was that we did need to do that.

I understand the discomfort of noble Lords around this. It is important that I recognise that, but it is also important to recognise when introducing legislation that sometimes it will not work perfectly for everybody. This is about prioritisation, not about exclusion.

Following that point, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked about emergency legislation. They asked: why now? As the Health Secretary set out in the other place, he has listened to resident doctors and their concerns about a system that does not work for them. He agreed to bring forward that emergency legislation as quickly as possible, rather than wait—this is key for a number of the points raised—another year to do so.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about the Bill’s commencement and why it will not commence at Royal Assent—that is a very fair question. We are introducing reforms for a large-scale recruitment process. I know that noble Lords will understand what a major undertaking this is. We do not want to create errors or more uncertainty. To make sure that it is effective in commencement, we must have clear processes for delivery across the health system, and I am sure that all noble Lords appreciate that these elements cannot be switched on overnight. As the Secretary of State said in the other place, there is a material consideration about whether it is even possible to proceed if the strikes are ongoing. He is concerned—I share this concern, as I am sure all noble Lords do—about the disruption that strikes cause and the pressure they put on resources, which would make it so much harder operationally to deliver the measures in the Bill.

Baroness Merron (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I completely understand the point about uncertainty. Uncertainty exists in the current system, and uncertainty may transfer for different reasons. We are keen to get on with this. I am just indicating some of the circumstances—strike action—that would cause difficulty for us in terms of commencement. I hope we can proceed. I think the noble Lord will understand exactly what I am saying.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about the release of more granular detail. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that NHS England already publishes a wide range of recruitment data, including data on country of qualification and nationality groups. It will publish further granular data when possible and monitor the implementation of the Bill, should it pass—that, for me, is the most important point. If the noble Baroness is referring to other information, she is very welcome to raise that with me.

I am of course very happy to meet with my noble friend Lord Stevenson. In general, the 10-year health plan commits to working with professional regulators and educational institutions over the next three years to overhaul education and training curricula.

To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on prioritisation, if I can put it in my language: you either are or are not prioritised. There are no tiers of priorities within priorities; it is as it is written in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, asked about the impact of prioritisation on harder-to-fill specialties. This approach will not negatively impact recruitment. In fact, it will ensure that priority groups are considered first, while keeping the door open for when we need people. I think it will help get people into the areas in which we need them, because it will direct people to where we do not have sufficient applicants.

At its heart, the Bill is about the UK-trained medical graduates on whom the NHS heavily relies. We are grateful for their skill, commitment and professionalism. It is our responsibility to ensure they are trained, supported and treated well at work. This is a more sustainable and considered approach to the allocation of medical training places. A number of noble Lords said that this is a problem that has been around for years. We are grasping the proverbial nettle. The Bill is a measured step towards the goals of clarity, fairness and opportunity. It will not, on its own, resolve everything—I am fully aware of that—but it will help us with a pressing problem. With that, I beg to move.

Lord Livermore

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this Second Reading debate on the Bill. It legislates for reforms announced in the Budget in November. That was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy that had at its heart three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability, getting inflation and interest rates down, we helped to give businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we protected £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing companies of the future, we supported the investment, innovation and economic dynamism that will increase growth in the next decade and beyond.

But these are choices that need to be paid for. That is why the Budget contained a series of reforms to the tax system to ensure that it keeps pace with a fast-changing economy. Those reforms include changes to pension salary sacrifice, contained in the Bill we are debating today. The Government spend over £500 billion each year on various reliefs within the tax system. That is more than double the entire annual NHS budget and nearly five times the annual budget for education. The size of this spend means the Government must always keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review. This Bill addresses just one of these reliefs: pension salary sacrifice, the cost of which was set to treble to £8 billion a year by the end of this decade.

That increase has been driven most by higher earners, with additional-rate taxpayers tripling their salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. This includes individuals sacrificing their bonuses without paying any income tax and national insurance contributions on them. But while those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. For example, the majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice, including many small businesses. Groups who are most likely to be undersaving for retirement, such as those on the national minimum wage and the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers, are also completely excluded from using salary sacrifice.

The status quo is neither fair nor fiscally sustainable. We cannot afford to allow the cost of pension salary sacrifice to balloon, benefiting predominantly higher earners. In this, we agree with the approach taken by the previous Government. In their 2015 Summer Budget, the then Government said:

“Salary sacrifice arrangements … are becoming increasingly popular and the cost to the taxpayer is rising”.


Two years later, the previous Government introduced reforms to salary sacrifice. The Finance Act 2017 removed the tax advantages of salary sacrifice for the majority of benefits in kind—for example, living accommodation or private medical insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, told the other place:

“The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary … and pay much lower tax … That is unfair”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/16; col. 907.]


The previous Government commissioned research in 2023, which included a proposal to cap pensions salary sacrifice at £2,000. This Government are now taking forward that reform to ensure that the tax system is kept on a sustainable footing.

Although some tax experts have called for pension salary sacrifice to be abolished entirely, the Government are taking a more measured and pragmatic approach. The Bill contains two main elements. First, it introduces a cap of £2,000 under which no employer and employee national insurance contributions will be charged on any pension contributions. The cap protects ordinary workers using salary sacrifice and limits the impact on employers while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected. Indeed, 95% of those earning £30,000 or less who currently make pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. It is forecast that 87% of salary sacrifice contributions above the cap will be made by higher rate and additional rate taxpayers. Individuals can also continue to save as much as they wish into their pensions, either through salary sacrifice or outside of it, both of which will be fully relievable of income tax.

Secondly, we are introducing this change with a long implementation period so that it will come into effect in 2029-30. This gives employers and employees over three years to prepare and to adjust. I am pleased that business and industry bodies have already welcomed this lengthy implementation period. HMRC is also engaging with industry stakeholders to ensure this change operates in the most effective way. That will continue as we approach implementation.

Saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, will remain hugely tax advantageous under these changes. The Government currently provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contributions relief on pension contributions each year. That spend will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employees’ pension contributions, including those made via salary sacrifice, will continue to be fully relievable from income tax at the employee’s marginal rate. For example, if a basic rate taxpayer were to put £100 into their pension, it would cost them just £80 of their take-home pay, with the Government providing the remaining £20 in tax relief. For a higher rate taxpayer, that same £100 pension contribution can cost them as little as £60 because they also receive relief at their marginal rate of tax.

For employers, all pension contributions they make for their employees outside of salary sacrifice will remain exempt from both income tax and national insurance contributions. This makes pensions one of the most tax-efficient ways to invest in their workforce. For example, if an employer contributes £1,000 to an employee’s pension, this is worth £150 in forgone employer national insurance contributions.

Since the Budget in November, it has been suggested by some that these changes will negatively impact the overall level of pension saving. We do not believe this to be the case. Salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were significant falls in private sector pension saving during this period. In 2012, only one in three private sector workers saved into a pension.

The key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years is not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees, but rather automatic enrolment, introduced in 2012, which has reversed the collapse in workplace pension saving. As a result of automatic enrolment, over 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.

Evidence also shows that pension contributions have risen in line with regulatory requirements, not with the growth of salary sacrifice. The majority of employers reducing their tax bill by offering pension salary sacrifice did not use the savings to increase pension contributions. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear in its economic and fiscal outlook that it does not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of the tax changes made in the Budget.

These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect lower and middle earners, give employers many years to prepare, preserve the incentives that underpin workplace pension saving, and ensure that the tax system is kept on a sustainable footing. The Bill builds on reforms by the previous Government to the salary sacrifice system and legislates for proposals first put forward in 2023. It also forms part of a wider package of reforms to ensure that the tax system keeps pace with our fast-changing economy. As a result of these and other reforms, the Government were able to take a series of pro-growth choices at the Budget last year to maintain economic stability, to reject austerity, to protect investment and to back the fast-growing companies of the future. These are the right and responsible choices to strengthen our economy for the long term. I beg to move.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, this Bill is deceptively small. It runs to just four pages of text and could be easily mistaken for something minor. But its consequences for working people and for long-term pension saving in particular are serious and far-reaching. We are talking about pensions, not other benefits, which the previous Government reformed.

There is a risk that the Bill’s impact will be misunderstood or dismissed as marginal, but it is neither. In simple terms, it introduces a £2,000 annual cap on the amount of pension saving that can be made through salary sacrifice without attracting national insurance. Above that cap, pension contributions are treated as earnings for national insurance purposes. Because of the way NICs work, employees earning below £50,270 will pay national insurance at 80% on the excess; those earning above that threshold will pay 2% on the excess. That is the policy, and the question for this House is who it really affects and what behaviour it is likely to change. I thank all noble Lords for staying late and look forward to their contributions.

The Government have repeatedly argued that this measure is targeted at those they describe as high earners. Page 2 of the Explanatory Notes makes it clear that this is the Government’s intention, and the fashionable Minister, Torsten Bell, has said that the Bill “protects ordinary workers”. He implicitly recognises that, for those on low incomes, salary sacrifice is the only way to build up a significant defined contribution pension fund.

But what is immediately obvious to the pension providers, employers and experts that we have spoken to is that this is not, in practice, a measure aimed at the highest earners. It hits people squarely in the middle of the income distribution, and in some cases below it. Those saving responsibly through salary sacrifice are most affected. They include younger professionals in high-cost cities and mid-career workers trying to make up pension shortfalls, typically earning between £30,000 and £60,000 a year. Given that the average UK salary is £37,430, it is difficult to see how people earning within this distribution can be credibly described as high earners. They are ordinary working people doing exactly what successive Governments have spent decades encouraging them to do: saving responsibly for retirement.

I will give the House a concrete example. Imagine a young professional who has just graduated and taken up a job in a city—London, Bristol or Manchester—earning £45,000 a year. They decide to do the responsible thing and save seriously for retirement, contributing £5,000 a year through salary sacrifice. Under the Bill, £3,000 of that saving is treated as earnings for national insurance purposes, and that individual will be paying more national insurance, not because their income has increased but because they are trying to secure a decent pension. This represents an additional hit of £240 a year for a young working person, coming on top of student loan repayments at a ridiculously high interest rate, tax, existing national insurance contributions and the high cost of living.

This raises a question for the Minister: quite how are the Government defining a high earner? A graduate in their 20s, living in London and living on £45,000 a year—£40,000 after sacrificing £5,000 for their pension—is not a high earner: not against average income, and certainly not in the context of where they are living. So where has the Treasury decided to draw that line? Unless the definition is clearly set out, it risks becoming a flexible and politically convenient threshold, capable of being shifted over time to suit the Treasury’s needs. Without a fixed and transparent definition, no group can be confident it will not be caught by provisions targeted at high earners.

The example I gave goes to the heart of one of our core concerns with the Bill, which is that the likely behavioural response it will generate risks undermining pensions adequacy. We already know that adequacy is a serious and unresolved problem. Auto-enrolment, introduced on a cross-party basis, has been a major success in bringing people into pension saving. But even so, the statutory minimum contribution of 8% is widely accepted as insufficient to deliver a decent retirement income for many people. The system relies on employers paying over the statutory minimum for their workers to be sufficiently funded in retirement. That is not a controversial point; it is the settled consensus of the pensions world.

The IFS report, Adequacy of Future Retirement Incomes: New Evidence for Private Sector Employees, clearly makes the point that despite the success of automatic enrolment, a large minority of private sector employees are not on track for an adequate retirement income and saving has become more challenging. It found that only 57% of private sector employees saving in defined contribution pensions are projected to hit the Pensions Commission’s target replacement rates, and around one-third of savers are not projected to achieve even the minimum retirement living standard defined by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association

Against that backdrop, discouraging additional pension saving is exactly the wrong policy response, yet that is precisely what the Bill does. Evidence published prior to the Budget suggested that nearly 40% of workers would reduce their pension saving if the benefits of salary sacrifice were capped, and the costs and complexities of the new system will almost certainly mean that employers reduce their salary sacrifice offerings altogether. That outcome is a foreseeable consequence of the policy design set out in the Bill.

The effects of the Bill will be felt not just immediately but deeply over time. Lower saving today means lower retirement income tomorrow and greater reliance on the state in future decades. At a time when we are rightly concerned about the long-term sustainability of the public finances, it is deeply troubling to introduce a measure that reduces pension saving, thus storing up higher costs for future Governments.

It would be a mistake to pretend that the Bill bears only on savers. Employers, especially small businesses, will be hit directly by higher costs, new administrative burdens and unpalatable choices about pay and pension provision. It comes at the worst possible time. Businesses are already struggling under the cumulative weight of this Government’s economic choices—minimum wage increases, punitive business rates, an expanding national insurance burden and an economy mired in prolonged stagnation.

Under the current system, salary sacrifice arrangements are a widely used mechanism through which employers support pension saving. They reduce employer NI liabilities, simplify administration and enable employers to offer more generous pension provision without increasing headline wages. The Bill fundamentally damages that settlement.

From April 2029, employers will be liable for employer national insurance contributions at 15% on any salary-sacrificed pension contributions above £2,000. That represents a direct increase in payroll costs for any organisation with meaningful take-up of salary sacrifice arrangements.

Let us imagine an employee aged 50 with a £40,000 salary, trying to make up a potential pension income shortfall before they retire by sacrificing £5,000 per year. Their £5,000 sacrifice is due to trigger national insurance on £3,000 of that amount, costing the employer an additional £450 and the employee £240 per year.

The Office for Budget Responsibility assumes that around three-quarters of those additional costs will be passed on to employees, either through lower wages or reduced employer pension contributions. But even with these anticipated changes in behaviour, employers will still bear substantial transitional costs, ongoing compliance burdens and reputational risks associated with scaling back on pensions.

Employers will also face new administrative and reporting requirements. To administer the £2,000 cliff edge, they will be required to track and report total salary-sacrificed pension contributions through payroll systems, calculate national insurance liabilities on any excess above the cap and communicate clearly with employees about changes to their take-home pay. While the three-year window will allow many to update their payroll software, the complexity should not be underestimated, particularly for smaller employers without sophisticated payroll infrastructure or for employees with more than one job, which is common in the SME sector.

Faced with these costs and complexities, it is entirely rational for employers to withdraw salary sacrifice. The result is likely to be less flexibility, fewer incentives to save, and weaker pension provision across the workforce, making the private sector even less competitive as compared with the generous defined benefit pension provision in the public sector.

This is not mere speculation by the Opposition. The OBR’s own revenue projections already assume significant behavioural change, and evidence suggests that employers are actively reassessing their pension strategies in anticipation of the Bill, meaning that it is increasingly likely that the OBR has been overgenerous in its estimations. At a time when successive Governments have encouraged employers to play a greater role in supporting retirement adequacy, often paying above the statutory minimum, the Bill risks pushing employers in precisely the opposite direction. Higher costs, greater complexity and weaker incentives are not a recipe for stronger workplace pensions, and there could even be a backlash against the Government as individual employees find it difficult to know whether they have hit the cap.

The Government argue that this is a modest measure necessary to raise revenue of £4.8 billion—and, I note cynically, to do so by the end of the forecast period in 2029-30, which is the horizon against which the Chancellor’s fiscal rules are judged. The revenue assumptions depend heavily on people not changing their behaviour, but the evidence suggests that they will. When incentives change, behaviour changes, by both individuals and employers. When behaviour changes, revenues fall, but the damage to pensions adequacy remains. The Bill risks achieving the worst of all worlds: reducing trust in the pensions system, a cap that disincentivises pension saving by responsible individuals, an increase in future dependency on the state, and a failure to deliver the long-term fiscal benefits the Government want.

Tax is a behavioural lever—a powerful one—and should not be considered independently of other pension priorities. The Government are legislating for these changes in isolation today, at a time when the Pension Schemes Bill and the Pensions Commission are likely to transform the whole pension environment. Is this really wise? I believe this House must scrutinise this Bill, its costings and any regulations made under its powers with the greatest of care.

Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who spoke about his personal experience of running a small business, which I also share.

When the Bill was introduced, the Treasury Minister in another place said:

“It is the richest who benefit from these schemes ... it is right that we make the scheme fairer for all”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/12/25; col. 1023.]


It is a weird definition of “fair” when someone earning £45,000—a basic rate taxpayer—is penalised for saving too much for their pension.

I reject the notion that fairness means endless redistribution from those who contribute to those who do not. A truly fair society recognises that those who work hardest, take the most risk and contribute the most deserve to be rewarded, because it is their success, and the wealth they create, that make it possible to help people who genuinely need the help. You do not lift up the poor by bringing down the rich; you do not make anyone richer by arguing about slices of the pie. Your Lordships do not need me to remind the House that it was Mrs Thatcher who said that. This progressive instinct—to take ever more from those who contribute and redistribute it endlessly—is yet another thing that sounds compassionate but is the opposite.

However, it is not just on values that I differ from the Government. I also differ from them in the practical outcomes. It actually would not matter if we had different values if the evidence showed that their policy was going to be successful and help people and society; but, as we have heard from all across the Chamber, these policies are not successful: they are economically illiterate and self-defeating. You just cannot tax your way to prosperity. Societies around the globe have tried it over and over again and it never works.

Your Lordships should consider this: the top 1% of earners in the country pay approximately 29% of all income tax. The top 10% pay roughly 60%. These are not bad, greedy or selfish people. They are working damn hard and are carrying the entire system on their backs. And what is their reward? To be told they are not paying their “fair share”. To face ever-higher taxes. To see their pension arrangements restricted, and to be demonised while people who choose not to work or who have only recently arrived in this country and never paid in, get benefits paid for by these very taxpayers.

The Government have claimed that this measure targets higher earners who benefit disproportionately from salary sacrifice, but that is just not the case, as we have heard in many other remarks. The Chartered Institute of Taxation found that limiting salary sacrifice will affect basic rate taxpayers more, pound for pound, than higher and additional rate taxpayers. Moreover, this change is likely to cause some employers to withdraw pension salary sacrifice as an option.

I started my business with my husband in a small flat above a former garage in Acocks Green, which is a suburb in inner-city Birmingham. We could not compete with large employers—established large companies—for the kinds of graduates we were trying to hire. We barely even had a flushing toilet in the first years we were starting, so we had to offer something to get people to actually come and work for us. We were able to offer salary sacrifice and pensions: that was one thing that we could do. We could not offer any other fancy perks, but at least we could offer that, and we knew that we were doing the right thing for people.

It is not surprising, unfortunately, that the Government take this approach, because—with a couple of honourable exceptions sitting here tonight—barely anybody in the Government has actually ever started a business or knows what it is like or has even worked in the private sector. Unfortunately, the Treasury’s own figures show that approximately 85,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by this. These could be people earning about £45,000 after 20 years in the workforce. The Treasury Minister talks about the rich, but these are not millionaires or billionaires: they are not Elon Musk. They are people who have just worked very hard in ordinary jobs for 20 or 30 years. They are the backbone of our country. They are saving for the future and they do not ask anything from the state. Yet their taxes are going up on absolutely everything and they do not get any of the benefits available to people on lower incomes. They cannot use those benefits and they do not use those services.

This is another restriction on these people’s ability to save, while the Government are subsidising many others who make lifestyle choices not to work and have unlimited numbers of children, while claiming benefits and not working. We are seeing that balloon now, with the two-child benefit cap going. We are providing housing and support for record numbers of illegal migrants at taxpayers’ expense. This is the absolute madness of this system now. The Bill is yet another punch in the guts for exactly the kind of country that we want to encourage and the people who keep this country going.

The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that two-fifths of people are not on track to achieve their retirement incomes, so the solution is to encourage more saving. I am out of time, but can the Government please look at amendments to protect basic rate taxpayers, index the threshold to inflation and require comprehensive review before implementation?

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their expertise, their contributions and questions, particularly at this late hour.

The Bill before your Lordships’ House legislates for reforms announced in the Budget last November. It was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy that had at its heart three deliberate pro-growth choices: to maintain economic stability, to protect £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure, and to back the fast-growing companies of the future, but, as I have said previously, these choices need to be paid for. That is why the Budget contained a series of reforms to the tax system to ensure it keeps pace with a fast-changing economy. Those reforms include the changes that we are debating today.

As several noble Lords mentioned this evening, the Government spend over £500 billion each year on tax relief. The size of this spend means they must always keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review. This Bill addresses just one of these reliefs, pension salary sacrifice. The cost of that was set to treble to £8 billion a year between 2017 and the end of this decade. That growth has been fastest among higher earners, with additional rate taxpayers tripling their salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. But while those on the higher salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. For example, the majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice, including many small businesses. Groups who are most likely to be undersaving for retirement, such as those on the national minimum wage and the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers, are also completely excluded from using salary sacrifice. The status quo is therefore neither fair nor fiscally sustainable. We simply cannot afford to allow the cost of pension salary sacrifice to balloon, benefiting predominantly higher earners.

The Bill therefore contains two main elements: first, to introduce a cap of £2,000 under which no employer and employee national insurance contributions will be charged on any pension contributions. Some 95% of those currently making pension contributions to salary sacrifice earning £30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected. Secondly, we are introducing this change with a long implementation period so that it comes into effect only in 2029-30. This gives employers and employees over three years to prepare and adjust.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, asked about the Government’s commitment not to increase taxes on working people. As he knows, the Budget in November kept our manifesto promise not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. It contained a series of reforms to the tax system to ensure it keeps pace with our fast-changing economy. The cost of pension salary sacrifice was set nearly to triple to £8 billion between 2017 and the end of the decade—as I said before, benefiting mainly higher earners.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke extensively about the impact on employers. The Government are taking a pragmatic, balanced approach by introducing a cap which protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The majority of employers—some 61%—do not offer this kind of salary sacrifice arrangement. Of the employers which do, most sectors, including retail, hospitality and leisure, have salary sacrifice contributions well below the £2,000 cap and are largely protected. Everyone using salary sacrifice will still benefit from the tax advantages available up to the £2,000 cap, this includes employers, which can make up to £300 of employer national insurance contribution savings through salary sacrifice per employee. These changes will not be implemented for over three years. In comparison, the previous Government gave just one year’s notice from announcing their changes to salary sacrifice in 2016 to implementing them from 2017.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also spoke about employers potentially stopping offering salary sacrifice schemes. The Government do not expect significant numbers of employers to stop offering salary sacrifice arrangements. Everyone using salary sacrifice will still benefit from the tax advantages available up to the £2,000 cap.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked about the cost to employers. The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice arrangements, and most sectors, including retail, hospitality and leisure, have salary sacrifice arrangements well below the cap. Everyone using salary sacrifice can still benefit from up to £300 employer national insurance contribution relief under the cap, and the full national insurance contributions relief is available on employer pension contributions outside of salary sacrifice. The Government are working closely with employers and the payroll industry to operationalise the change in the most effective way.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, spoke about the impact on small businesses. Small businesses are far less likely than larger businesses to offer pension salary sacrifice. Only 10% of employees in SMEs have pension contributions through salary sacrifice exceeding the cap, compared with 18% of employees in larger firms. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also spoke about the impact on retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. As I have said already, most firms in this sector have salary sacrifice contributions well below the £2,000 cap and are therefore largely protected.

The noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, spoke about the impact on low earners. Higher earners are most likely to be using salary sacrifice and the majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected by the changes. The Bill impacts only employees who use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, which is around 35% of employees. Those earning at or near the national living wage cannot use salary sacrifice at all. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, also asked about basic rate taxpayers. The £2,000 cap is worth up to £160 a year for basic rate taxpayers. Those earning below £30,000 making pension contributions through salary sacrifice are overwhelmingly protected, with only 5% making pension contributions above the cap.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about individuals earning around the £50,000 mark. The Government are taking a pragmatic, balanced approach by introducing a cap which protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers, while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. Everyone can still save up to £2,000 via salary sacrifice free of national insurance contributions. Amounts sacrificed above £2,000 will continue to be fully relievable from income tax, but we must continue to ensure that the £500 billion of tax reliefs provided each year are effective and provide value for money.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, asked about the profile of the costings, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe. The costings reflect independent OBR scrutiny and use the best available data on current salary sacrifice and bonus sacrifice behaviour. Employees will respond to the changes in a number of ways. One way is that many employees will switch to making ordinary pension contributions, some of which will be to relief at source schemes. Where an employee contributes to a relief at source scheme, they will initially pay higher rate and additional rate income tax on their pension contributions and then reclaim this through their self-assessment tax return in the next year. This creates a temporary timing effect. Beyond the forecast period, this effect becomes very small.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, asked about indexing the £2,000 cap. The Government have no plans to index the cap, but we will keep the £2,000 level under review to ensure that it continues to meet its objectives and remains fair across the labour market. This is consistent with the approach to other pension tax reliefs, including the annual allowance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about the costings of this policy and about the savings generated from this change. The costings for this policy have been scrutinised and certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its economic and fiscal outlook. They already account for changes in employer behaviour, including employers providing higher employer pension contributions to replicate the national insurance contribution benefits of salary sacrifice. We remain confident of these costings.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, suggested that this was designed only to meet the fiscal rules in 2029-30. The reality is that the Government are giving employers sufficient time to prepare and adjust their systems by implementing the changes from April 2029. That is over three years’ notice before the changes take effect. We are also engaging with employers, payroll administrators and other stakeholders on the administration of the cap to provide certainty ahead of implementation.

On that specific point, also raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Fuller, about the administration of this policy, HMRC is engaging with a wide range of stakeholders in the payroll, employer and software developer industries to work through exactly how the cap will be implemented. This will be vital to ensuring it is implemented in the least burdensome way possible for employers. Engagement will also help inform the secondary legislation, in which the detail of the operability will be set out and further consulted on.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton spoke about how salary sacrifice is just one part of the pension landscape, and I say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who did not mention during her contribution that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, will remain hugely tax advantageous even under these changes. The Government currently provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief on pension contributions each year. That spend will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employees’ pension contributions, including those made via salary sacrifice, will continue to be fully relievable from income tax at the employee’s marginal rate. For employers, all pension contributions remain exempt from both income tax and national insurance contributions. This makes pensions one of the most tax-efficient ways to invest in their workforce.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, spoke about the impact on pension savings. The Government do not believe that these changes will negatively impact the overall level of pension saving. Salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were significant falls in private sector pension savings during this period. In 2012, only one in three private sector workers saved into a pension.

As I said in my opening, the key factor that led to an increase in saving in recent years is not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees but rather automatic enrolment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about, and which has reversed the collapse in workplace pension savings. As a result of automatic enrolment, over 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also made it clear in its economic and fiscal outlook that it does not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of the tax changes made in the Budget.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, spoke about the impact on individuals who are currently undersaving. The groups that we know are undersaving for their pension, including low earners, women and the self-employed, are the least likely to use salary sacrifice. Workers on the national living wage are excluded entirely from salary sacrifice, and so are the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK. By contrast, these changes overwhelmingly affect higher and additional rate taxpayers. In 2030, 87% of affected salary sacrifice pension contributions made from earnings will be from higher and additional rate taxpayers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, also mentioned the Pensions Commission. There is cross-party agreement on the importance of the work of the Pensions Commission as it examines questions of adequacy and fairness. The Government will not prejudge the commission’s work.

The Budget in November contained pro-growth choices to maintain economic stability, reject austerity, protect investment and back the fast-growing companies of the future, but these are choices which need to be paid for. That is why this Bill reforms pension salary sacrifice to ensure that our tax system is kept on a sustainable footing. The Bill protects lower and middle earners, gives employers many years to prepare, and preserves the incentives that underpin workplace saving. These are fair and balanced reforms. They build on the steps already taken by the previous Government to reform salary sacrifice and strengthen our economy for the long term. I beg to move.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am delighted to open proceedings with my noble friend Lord Altrincham on our first day in Committee and to be joined in this group by my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

This is not a Bill we welcome. Contributors to research done by HMRC published last year were critical of all the hypothetical scenarios put forward by the Government, including the £2,000 cap, which I believe was seen as the most complicated option presented. This proposal will add to administrative burdens on business, as will become clear when we debate later amendments, especially where people have multiple jobs, start or change employment or vary what they do seasonally.

We are also greatly concerned that it will limit incentives to save, punish normal working people for making prudent and sensible decisions, and reduce pension adequacy. Pensions adequacy is one of the central long-term economic challenges facing this country and, under this Government, it is only set to get far worse. Today we are looking at another small nail in the coffin of such adequacy. Of course, the proposal was not in the Labour manifesto, which I think promised not to raise taxes on working people.

The research by HMRC has shown that employers were seriously concerned that

“changing the pension system could inevitably cause confusion and risk people becoming more disengaged with pensions”.

Against this unsatisfactory background, Amendments 1 and 14 make a simple but very important clarification, which is to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the £2,000 cap. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, one-quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, and who will be hit by the changes that this Bill will bring in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap, with possibly greater numbers joining them, as the cap is not indexed. The Minister might dispute those specific numbers, but even he conceded at Second Reading that people earning under £30,000 would be affected by this change.

Not only does this contrast starkly with the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the Explanatory Notes and by the Minister at Second Reading, to affect only higher earners; it also disproportionately affects lower-paid workers. Salary sacrifice, as we know, allows an employee to give up a portion of their pay so that it is paid directly into their pension. That does not just attract income tax relief, as all pension contributions do; it also enables national insurance contributions to be saved on the amount transferred. So it is the contribution that working people pay every month that lies at the heart of this issue. Higher rate taxpayers continue to benefit from relief related to their tax rate of 40%. Basic rate taxpayers benefit less, since their tax rate is only 20%. We are talking, on Treasury estimates, about 850,000 basic rate taxpayers.

For a basic rate taxpayer, the 8% national insurance loss amounts to two-fifths of the value of their income tax relief. In absolute terms, the marginal cost of this policy is four times higher for lower-paid workers than for those on higher incomes. The problem goes further: this is a harsher blow to certain groups of savers than many had anticipated, particularly those repaying student loans. That is why I very much support Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, which would prevent those repaying student loans from being hit by a double whammy. I will leave it to him to explain the detail.

Graduates begin repaying their loans once earnings exceed £28,745, at a rate of 9% if they are on the plan 2 scheme. If the Bill is unamended, graduates using salary sacrifice will no longer see that 9% effectively redirected into their pension via salary sacrifice once they exceed the £2,000 cap. For those individuals, the effective loss is not just 8% in national insurance but 17% at the margin.

This comes at a time when the newspapers are full of furious comment about the high interest rates—inflation plus a huge 3%—payable on plan 2 loans. The announcement over the weekend by Kemi Badenoch to support a cut in the rate of interest charged on some student loans issued in the decade up to 2023 is therefore most welcome and is a clear step toward addressing this problem, which the Government, distressingly, seem content to live with.

The interaction between that major issue of public concern today and this Bill on salary sacrifice comes through clearly in a comment from the director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. She said:

“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay”.


At a time when we are urging people to do the right thing—to save, to plan ahead and to take responsibility for their retirement—the Government are choosing to hit lower-paid workers harder. That is the unavoidable consequence of how this policy operates in practice.

Worse still, it falls most heavily on a younger generation who already face higher housing costs, who paid for their university education and who now find work taxed more heavily under this Government’s jobs tax—last year’s £25 billion NICs changes, which we discussed in this Room and which we rightly warned would devastate youth employment. Because that prediction has proved accurate, especially for young people, the Government would be wise to listen to the concerns aired today and outside and make changes to this Bill. It is ironic in a way that we are considering this at the same time as the Pension Schemes Bill, which is designed to improve pension saving and the incentive to save. We are doing the opposite here: making pension saving harder, less attractive and less fair.

Our amendments provide a simple solution for the Minister. By exempting basic rate taxpayers from coming under the cap, we would ensure that the Government’s stated aim is achieved and that we modify what is in effect a regressive tax. Our amendment offers a simple, targeted means of mitigating the harm that this policy will cause to some of the more financially vulnerable people in our society and I urge the Minister to accept it. If he cannot, he should explain to the Committee why his Government are choosing to disincentivise people from taking responsibility for their own future at precisely the moment when state pensions are under significant strain, which is set to intensify in the years ahead. Lower savings today means lower retirement income tomorrow and greater reliance on the state for future needs.

I turn to my Amendments 2 and 15, which ask the Minister a very simple question. What precisely does the Treasury mean by a “higher earner”? Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government have repeatedly justified this policy on the basis that it is targeted at higher earners. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, described the reforms as “fair and balanced” and said that they,

“protect lower and middle earners”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. 1684.]

Similarly, the Explanatory Notes state plainly that the Bill

“limits the NICs relief available to higher earners”.

Those are the Government’s words, but nowhere in the Bill, in the Explanatory Notes or in the Minister’s speech is the term “higher earner” actually defined.

That is a serious matter, because the practical effect of this policy suggests that it reaches well beyond any intuitive understanding of what a “higher earner” might be. The Minister has already acknowledged that individuals earning £30,000 and below will be affected. Industry experts have warned that those earning between £30,000 and £60,000 are likely to feel the impact most acutely. Median earnings in the UK are around £37,000 and, in London, they are £10,000 greater. Given this, who are these “higher earners” to whom the Treasury refers?

Since the election, we have heard a succession of phrases from the Treasury: working people, ordinary earners, higher earners. The language shifts, but what has remained constant is the refusal to define these terms. When this House considered the national insurance Bill last year, we warned that the burden would ultimately fall on working people. That proved correct; and the same risk arises here that rhetoric about protecting lower and middle earners does not align with the actual distributional impact of the policy, and the Government are allowed to get away with it because they never set the goalposts in the first place. If the Government’s objective is generally to protect those on lower and middle incomes, that objective must be capable of scrutiny. Scrutiny requires definition. Without definition, we cannot assess whether the Government are meeting their own stated aims. That seems a basic requirement of transparency in fiscal policy-making. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on this first group of amendments. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed.

This first set of amendments, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the Bill. I have listened closely to the points raised and the concerns expressed during this debate. The Government have ensured that the measures in the Bill do not affect the majority of basic rate taxpayers. Around 74% of basic rate taxpayers currently using salary sacrifice will be protected by the £2,000 cap, and almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less will be protected. The small number of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above £2,000 will continue to benefit from employee national insurance relief, worth £160 a year, in addition to the full income tax relief that they receive on their pension contributions. Of the small number basic rate taxpayers who are impacted, half will face an annual additional national insurance contributions liability of less than £50.

While we recognise the intention behind the amendments laid by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, exempting basic rate taxpayers would, in practice, be operationally challenging and add significant further complexity to the tax system. That is because the tax system can confirm which band an individual is in only at the end of a tax year, when reconciliation of their income tax liabilities has taken place. Adding complexity to the system would also likely lead to an increase in costs for employers, as they would be required to bear the burden of identifying the full extent of their employees’ potentially multiple sources of income.

This leads me to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek clarity on the basis on which the Government consider certain employed earners to be “higher earners” for the purposes of the national insurance charge, as well as how the contributions limit reflects that assessment. The Explanatory Notes set out that the policy rationale is to limit

“the NICs relief available to higher earners on employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements whilst protecting lower earning pension savers by introducing a £2,000 threshold. Most employees and their employers who make typical pensions contributions via salary sacrifice will be unaffected”.

This is indeed the effect of the Bill. Some 87% of pension contributions made via salary sacrifice above £2,000 are forecast to come from higher and additional rate taxpayers. Some 74% of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be protected by the £2,000 cap, and almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less will be protected.

Let me turn lastly to the amendments in this grouping tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They seek to exempt salary sacrificed pension contributions over the limit from being included in student loan repayments definitions to employees making student loan repayments. The salary sacrifice changes made through the Bill equalise the national insurance contributions treatment of salary sacrifice above the cap with other types of employee pension contribution, which are counted as earnings when calculating student loan repayments.

There may or may not be good arguments for or against that, but we do not consider this Bill an appropriate vehicle through which to amend the basis of student loan repayments. The basis of calculating income from student loan repayments is set out in separate regulations, and we do not believe that this Bill should seek to vary that. It is also the case that, of employees making contributions via salary sacrifice, younger people are much more likely to be fully protected by the £2,000 cap than those over the age of 30. Some 76% of those in their 20s who use salary sacrifice are protected by the cap, compared to half of those aged 30 and above.

In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am pleased that we have begun Committee by addressing this issue and grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who seemed to be saying—I think with support from outside bodies—that the Treasury’s financial estimates were over-optimistic. That may, of course, be true of the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has kindly given us, which we will obviously need to have a look at, on the effect of the change.

The difficulty as I see it is that the policy remains vague. Its impacts are largely unknown and the income group it is intended to capture is undefined. The Treasury’s assessment of how it will operate in practice has been inadequate. It is a complex mechanism by which to raise a relatively modest amount of revenue and does not take effect until 2029. It is a tool, if not a very sensible one, designed to make the Chancellor’s sums add up, rather than a longer-term policy. Even if the Government succeed in raising anything like the figure set out in the Treasury note, the projected yield declines sharply within just a few years of implementation.

There is also an issue of definition. I think the potential cost is greater. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, there is a risk that middle and lower-income workers, and those paying basic rates of tax, will be drawn into scope. After all, this is a dynamic situation—we will come on to discuss whether there are ways of tackling that—but it could have serious consequences, and we would need to come back to the point about pension saving, long-term adequacy and, ultimately, future liabilities for the state. There is also an issue about irregular payments—“bonuses” was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The majority of bonuses, in my experience, are small, as I know from my time at Tesco, but they can be used usefully to invest in pensions.

The absence of any safeguard in the Bill to prevent basic rate taxpayers being captured is a significant omission. If the Government are confident that such individuals will be protected, they should be willing to put that protection in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, rightly supported the need for transparency, and of course Amendment 2, which requires Ministers to define “higher earners”, would achieve just that. Even the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, agreed that there was a “kink in the line”.

Her Majesty’s Opposition are very concerned about the unfair impact on those struggling to pay their student loans at a rate of interest which is impossible to justify. The Government must look seriously at how to mitigate this, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley explained with his customary vim, and to do this in the Bill—not promise to do something elsewhere. This is a big issue that has been raised and it has to be solved. We are very sympathetic to those with big debts, which they will have to pay off under the loans scheme, so a way needs to be found to help them.

There is an ambiguity, as my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough said from his position as a tax expert, and we need to listen to him. He also warned of its damaging implications, on top of those already introduced for IHT on pensions. This is part of a wider attack on pensions which it is important to do something about if we are to tackle the problems of long-term pension sustainability.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I may need to come back to this on Report, as it is at the heart of the acceptability of this Bill.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I shall speak first to the amendments in this group that stand in my name and then to those tabled by my noble friends. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, helpfully outlined a list of banana skins or uncertainties from her experience, such as the cost of changes in employment contracts and payroll software and of dealing with employees concerned about the change. She was right to ask whether we need to legislate so rapidly given the complexities that seem to be thrown up by today’s useful debate.

My amendments, Amendments 5 and 18, helpfully supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, chiefly concern the principle of parliamentary oversight. Nothing is more central to our work. Under Clauses 1 and 2, the Bill quite properly provides that regulations reducing the £2,000 contributions limit must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is right. If the Treasury lowers the cap, Parliament must be given the final say. What the Bill does not provide is affirmative scrutiny where the Treasury alters the methodology by which the cap is calculated or applied. That omission is significant because new subsections (6C) and (6D) do not deal with minor technical points but determine how the policy will operate in practice for thousands of earners whose pay patterns do not fit a neat monthly model.

Let us look at new subsection (6C). It permits regulations to prescribe an equivalent contributions limit for those paid weekly or at other intervals. That phrase “other intervals” is remarkably broad. It covers shift workers, contractors, seasonal workers, gig economy participants, those on irregular pay cycles and those with multiple employments. People in these forms of employment make up a large and growing segment of the modern labour market, yet the detail of how the limit will be translated for those individuals is not in the Bill. It is left entirely to regulations and consultation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. The annual cap is scrutinised in primary legislation, but, inconsistently, the translation of that cap into weekly, irregular or non-standard pay structures, the arrangements when an employee moves and other detail of importance to both workers and those operating payrolls, are to be set out later in regulations without the same degree of parliamentary approval. These points can be material in terms of compliance costs and fairness. In other words, those whose circumstances fit most neatly within the annual framework benefit from full parliamentary scrutiny, while those whose pay patterns are more complex do not. We submit that if the methodology by which the cap is applied to those workers is altered in a way that materially changes who pays and how much, that is a policy decision and one which requires greater scrutiny from your Lordships’ House and the other place.

The same concerns arise under new subsection (6D). There, the Treasury is given powers to determine by regulation when amounts treated as remuneration are deemed to be paid, in prescribed cases to treat a figure other than the amount foregone as remuneration and to calculate that alternative figure in such manner and on such basis as may be prescribed. These are extremely broad powers. They allow the Treasury not merely to administer the cap but to redefine how remuneration is attributed and calculated for NICs purposes. If such methodological changes can be made without returning to Parliament for affirmative approval, the House will have ceded oversight of important mechanisms that determine the real-world effect of this new policy.

My amendments simply make the point that where the method by which the contributions limit is calculated or applied is altered, Parliament should have the opportunity to approve the change. The Committee is currently scrutinising the Bill line by line. We are examining the consequences. It would be inconsistent if, once enacted, substantial changes could be introduced through regulations subject only to the negative procedure. If the Government are confident that any such changes would be technical and uncontroversial, they should have no objection to subjecting them to affirmative scrutiny.

These provisions will affect real employers and real employees. They will determine compliance burdens, payroll calculations and the effective tax treatment of pension saving. They are not trivial matters. In short, where the substance of the policy shifts, Parliament should be asked to approve that shift. I hope the Minister will recognise that this is a sound and serious constitutional point and give it proper consideration.

Amendments 4 and 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, make an interesting case. The Government’s policy intent, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, is to apply a national insurance change where pension contributions are made pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements—in other words, where an employee has chosen to forgo cash pay in return for an employer pension contribution. However, there are some workplace pension arrangements where no such option exists: the employee is not offered a cash alternative, there is no choice between salary and pension, and the employer contribution is simply part of the structured remuneration package.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how the arrangements can properly be described as optional. There is no alternative compensation available and there is no optionality. The amendment therefore makes clear that where no cash alternative is offered, the arrangement should not be treated as an optional remuneration arrangement for the purposes of the new NICs charges. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether arrangements with no genuine cash alternative are intended to fall within the scope of the Bill. If not, I hope he might look favourably on this clarification.

My noble friend Lord Leigh’s Amendment 33 makes a further important point that the Bill should not come into force until the Treasury has published clear guidance setting out how the contributions limit will apply in cases of multiple concurrent employments. This is a matter of basic administrative clarity and fairness. The question about two caps for two jobs came from my noble friend himself, and it would be interesting to know the answer.

My noble friend Lord Mackinlay doubts whether guidance is the right route, and wants to know what the arrangements will be today, with amendments to the Bill if we believe—in the light of the answers—that that is needed. We certainly need clarity, a change to the scrutiny of regulations to the affirmative, and perhaps guidance when we have the answers.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 4A in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. As drafted, the Bill introduces a flat £2,000 annual limit, above which salary sacrifice to employer pensions will attract national insurance. It is a hard cap. But real earnings do not operate in neat annual instalments; for many people, remuneration fluctuates significantly from year to year. Without any carry-forward mechanism of the kind well articulated by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay, which is apparently not very costly, the Bill creates a cliff edge. An individual who sacrifices modestly for several years but has a single high-earning year will be treated as if that year existed in isolation. That is not how pension saving works elsewhere in the tax system.

The pensions annual allowance regime already provides a three-year forward framework. Amendments 4B and 17B would align the national insurance treatment with that established precedent. The alternative amendments, Amendments 4A and 17A, simply provide the Treasury with a permissive power to introduce such a mechanism. They offer flexibility should Ministers be concerned about immediate fiscal implications.

Amendment 29A would require an independent review within 18 months of implementation. The Bill introduces a new compliance framework affecting payroll systems, remuneration design and pension planning. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should require evidence of its real-world impact, particularly on fluctuating earners and on employer administrative burdens. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that the extra burden of complexity on employers can be dismissed, particularly now we have heard that currently there is so little interaction between second and third employers. We want fewer burdens, not more. Enough is enough, and I look forward to a proper and detailed response on these very important technical points.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I begin by addressing Amendments 4 and 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. These amendments relate to the technical and operational detail of the legislation, including the definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” and procedure. I fully understand the concern underlying them, which is to ensure that the Bill operates in a targeted, proportionate way and does not inadvertently affect ordinary employer pension contributions. The Government share this objective and I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify our intent.

The Bill before the Committee already relies on the established definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” set out in the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003; this is the same framework that has applied since the optional remuneration arrangement rules were introduced in 2017. Under that definition, the rules apply only where an employee is given a choice—for example, a choice between receiving earnings or receiving employer pension contributions instead. This includes salary sacrifice arrangements, where an employee agrees to a lower cash salary in exchange for a pension contribution, or situations where an employee chooses pension contributions in place of a cash allowance.

Importantly, the Bill does not affect employer pension contributions where no such choice exists. Where an employer makes pension contributions as a standard part of the remuneration package and there is no alternative of cash or earnings available to the employee, those arrangements do not fall within the definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” and are, therefore, outside the scope of the Bill. In those cases, standard employer pension contributions will continue to be fully exempt from national insurance contributions, exactly as they are now. Nothing in this legislation changes that position.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I suppose I would ask the noble Baroness: who does she mean when she asks, “How would one know”? Who is “one” in that instance? HMRC? That would be reported to HMRC, would it not?

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The example given by the noble Baroness is not a salary-sacrificed pension contribution. What she is describing is exactly what you would want to happen. Surely you want the pension contribution to go from 6% to 8%.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I do not understand where the problem is, because that is a good thing.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am happy to take this away and look at it, but I cannot see any way in which that would be the situation. Employers presumably increase their pension contributions all the time. That is a good public policy outcome. There is no way in which that would be caught by these regulations. I have made that extremely clear in what I am saying.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a perfectly good outcome if the employer increases their contribution into an employee’s pension. That is something we want to achieve. On specifically how HMRC would view that, I am very happy to take that away, but I do not believe in any way, in what I am saying, that that is the intention of what we are doing.

I will finish what I was saying. In those cases, standard employer pension contributions will continue to be fully exempt from national insurance contributions, exactly as they are now. Nothing in this legislation changes that position. For these reasons, the Bill already draws the correct boundary by relying on a well-established and familiar legal definition. It targets only those arrangements where an employee is given a choice between cash and pension provision, and it does not interfere with ordinary, non-optional employer pension contributions.

I turn to Amendments 5 and 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. These amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny and procedure. I agree with noble Lords about the importance of maintaining strong parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where changes could affect individuals’ national insurance liabilities. That is an important principle and one that the Government share. That is why the Bill contains a series of safeguards to protect scrutiny and transparency.

The Bill explicitly provides that, where regulations are used to reduce the generosity of the £2,000 limit—that is, where changes would lower the contribution limit and thereby increase the amount of earnings subject to class 1 national insurance contributions—those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure. This ensures that any change which tightens the policy or increases liability is brought before Parliament for full scrutiny and approval.

By contrast, where regulations are made simply to implement the policy, to set out administrative arrangements or to increase the £2,000 limit, thereby resulting in less national insurance being payable, it is standard practice for those regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. That approach reflects the well-established distinction between substantive policy changes and regulations which deal with administration or confer additional relief.

This is not a new or novel approach. It follows the established precedent for regulations made under the existing powers in Section 4(6) and Section 4A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. In those cases, regulations of an administrative or beneficial nature have routinely been subject to the negative procedure.

I also note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has carefully scrutinised the powers in the Bill, including the proposed level of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee has confirmed that there is nothing in the Bill that it wished to draw to the special attention of the House.

Taken together, these provisions ensure an appropriate and proportionate balance: robust parliamentary oversight where the policy is made less generous, and a well-established, efficient procedure for setting out administrative detail and making changes that operate in favour of contributors.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Before the Minister moves on, would he consider making an affirmative regulation on the very first occasion? The discussions that we have had this evening show that there is quite a bit of complexity here, and that has compliance costs for employers and employees. It seems odd to take the precedent of the social security Act on something new and difficult. I wonder whether that would be worth considering. Perhaps the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not have the benefit of the experts here who have explained some of the problems. I am sure the Minister cannot say anything today, but could he at least have a look at whether the first such regulations could be by affirmative resolution, which is a practice that I have encountered with lots of other Bills that we probably worked on together?

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I have set out very clearly which will be approached with the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure, and I do not think it is our intention to deviate from that very clear precedent.

Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, relates to the operability of the contributions limit for those with multiple concurrent jobs. Amendments 4A, 4B, 17A, 17B and 29A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also relate to operability of the contributions limit, with a focus on those with fluctuating earnings and their employers.

I fully understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised about how this measure will operate in practice, particularly for those with more complex employment arrangements and irregular patterns of remuneration. While the Bill provides the necessary powers, the full operational detail of the £2,000 cap will be set out in regulations that are yet to be published. The purpose of this two-stage process is to ensure that when the cap is introduced, it operates effectively across a wide range of real-world circumstances, including for individuals with multiple jobs, complex payroll arrangements, changing employment or fluctuating remuneration patterns over the course of a year.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That intention will be set out in the regulations once we have fully consulted relevant employers.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his further thoughts. The carryover feature—

Lord Livermore

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Obviously, I hear what the noble Baroness says.

The carryover feature of the pensions annual allowance, referenced in the justification for the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, sets the maximum amount of tax-relieved pension savings an individual can build up in a tax year without triggering a tax charge, which for most people is £60,000. The carryover feature is intended to accommodate one-off irregular spikes in pension saving or defined benefit accrual. The annual allowance carry-forward requires individuals to hold or obtain accurate records to track usage and eligibility and is not intended for day-to-day retirement planning. The Government do not consider it suitable to introduce a similar mechanism in the context of the cap on national insurance contribution-free pension saving in the Bill.

Before the detailed regulations that support the introduction of this change are finalised, HMRC will work closely with employers, payroll providers and software developers to ensure the policy operates smoothly for businesses and individuals. This engagement is not a formality. It is a necessary step to ensure that we collaboratively identify the best and most workable way to apply the £2,000 national insurance contributions-free limit, minimise administrative burdens and avoid unintended consequences, particularly for those whose earnings are spread across more than one employment.

Taking the time to engage properly and test implementation options is the best way to ensure that the policy works as intended from the outset. That is why the Government have committed sufficient time to work with stakeholders, up to and including the preparation of the important guidance for operation that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has raised in Amendment 29A.

On Amendment 29A, which proposes a reporting provision on the administrative cost borne by employers, I note that, upon the introduction of the Bill to Parliament, a tax information and impact note was published by the Government, setting out the impact of this policy’s operationalisation on employees and their employers. Supporting those who will implement this change within their organisations is vital, but we do not agree that that support should take the form of additional reporting requirements.

In light of all the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

First, I will address Amendments 6, 10, 11, 13, 19, 22, 23 and 25 in the names of by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Londesborough. These amendments seek to uprate the cap by the percentage change in the consumer prices index or the retail prices index. The Government agree on the need to keep the level of the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet its policy objective: keeping the cost of salary sacrifice tax reliefs on a fiscally sustainable footing while protecting ordinary workers. However, we disagree with the approach set out in these amendments because it would be inconsistent with the approach taken in respect of other pension tax reliefs, which are not routinely indexed with inflation.

For example, in 2023, when the previous Government made changes to the annual allowance, they increased it by a set amount rather than indexing it; the annual allowance was otherwise not routinely uprated or index-linked. The Government are taking a pragmatic, balanced approach to ensuring that the cost of tax relief on salary sacrifice pension contributions remains fiscally sustainable. The future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for future Budgets in those decades.

This leads me on to Amendments 7 to 9, 20 and 21 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Londesborough. These amendments seek to increase the cap beyond £2,000. It is important to consider the level of the cap in the wider context of the objectives of this change, which are about keeping the tax system on a sustainable footing while protecting ordinary workers. Without reform, the cost of this tax relief is now set to almost treble in cost, from £2.8 billion to £8 billion, with the vast majority of the benefit going to higher earners because around 62% of salary sacrifice contributions come from the top 20% of earners. Although some tax experts have called for pension salary sacrifice to be abolished entirely, the Government are taking a more measured and pragmatic approach.

As I said earlier this afternoon, the £2,000 cap protects 74% of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice. This means that three-quarters of those earning up to £50,270 a year who use salary sacrifice will be protected by the cap. Almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less who use salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected by the changes. Some 87% of salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. Increasing the level of the cap in the way proposed by these amendments would cost additional money and would undermine the objective of putting this tax relief on a sustainable footing for the future. Such changes should also be considered in the wider context of pension tax relief, which amounts to more than £70 billion each year; that spend will be entirely unaffected by this legislation.

In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 12 and 24, which would exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises from the salary sacrifice pension contribution cap introduced by the Bill. I also welcome Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, requiring a review of the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff.

Small and medium enterprises have been hammered under this Government. They have introduced policies that will cost businesses £25 billion annually in tax compliance alone, according to the firm Together Accounting. Their previous NICs hike added a further £25 billion burden and there are business rate hikes, minimum wage increases and the Employment Rights Act. Is it any wonder that 52 businesses per 10,000 are entering insolvency, nearly double the rate from just five years ago? The Federation of Small Businesses reports that 63% of businesses now cite tax as their primary concern. Business confidence has plummeted. This is something that I have spoken about many times, and the Conservative Party stands with small businesses. They are the lifeblood of our communities, our jobs market and our economy.

Our amendment tries to shield SMEs and charities from what is effectively yet another damaging tax by exempting them from this policy. Given the onslaught SMEs have suffered under the Government, the rationale for this needs little explanation. SMEs operate on thin margins, often without sophisticated accounting mechanisms or payroll and accounting teams. They will be disproportionately affected by this policy and should be exempt.

Turning to charities, before the Budget was even confirmed, the Charity Finance Group ran a survey of the sector specifically on the question of salary sacrifice. It found, and I urge the Committee to note these figures carefully, that 81% of charities reported that the salary sacrifice change would have a negative impact on their ability to offer competitive benefits to staff. Nearly seven in 10 had already started to reduce headcount or expected to do so in the near future, and that was before this further measure. It is not surprising that they are worried, as in my experience charities often have more complex employment arrangements: seasonal working, moving jobs, and weekly rather than monthly pay. They also often have much less sophisticated payroll systems.

CFG warned explicitly that, for charities operating on tight margins, salary sacrifice has been a critical tool and a way both to support staff and to achieve meaningful savings on employer national insurance at the same time, stretching limited resources further while enabling employees to build better pension provision. To cap that mechanism is to remove one of the few cost-efficient tools available to organisations that cannot increase prices, raise equity finance or easily diversify their income when grant funding or public contracts do not keep pace with costs.

The wider context of what has happened to charities under the Bill matters here, too. Last year, on Report, the House of Lords carried amendments to the then national insurance contributions Bill that would have protected small charities with revenues under £1 million from the main NICs rise. However, the Government rejected them, and we have seen what happened there. The Government have said that they want to build a stronger economy and a thriving civil society. That ambition is not well served by a policy that removes from smaller employers and civil society organisations one of the most effective tools that they have to compete for talent and support their people in saving for retirement.

Amendment 26 asks that, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Government commission and lay before Parliament an independent review of its impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, including administrative costs, compliance burdens, employment costs and the ability of SMEs to attract and retain staff—and, crucially, that this be assessed in the context of the cumulative changes to employer national insurance since July 2024.

Time and again, the Government’s approach has displayed a worrying lack of understanding of how small firms actually operate, how thin their margins are, how sensitive they are to cumulative costs and how easily confidence can be shaken. We saw it with the previous national insurance hike and in the rushed recalibration over pubs, and we see it all over again in this Bill and the rush to pass it when the vital detail is still to be settled. We know that the revenue collected will almost halve in the second year of implementation, so there will be lots of new compliance costs and an uncertain future.

If the Government are confident that this measure will not materially damage SMEs, they should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that through an independent review. If they are serious about growth, entrepreneurship and avoiding further damaging U-turns, they should look at the cumulative picture. Given the scale of pessimism now facing the small business community and the stakes for employment and growth, I urge the Government to accept this amendment. SMEs do not trust the Government to act in their interests. If the Treasury were to adopt such an amendment—as well as the associated one for Northern Ireland, where there are so many SMEs—perhaps this trust might start to be rebuilt. I beg to move.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. First, I will address Amendments 18 and 24 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which would exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises from the Bill.

The Government agree on the importance of supporting small businesses and ensuring that they are not unduly impacted by these changes. Small and medium-sized enterprises are far less likely to offer pension salary sacrifice than larger businesses. According to Nest Insight, around 33% of small businesses offer pension salary sacrifice to their employees, compared with 83% of large businesses. In addition, employees of small and medium-sized enterprises are far less likely to have contributions exceeding the £2,000 cap; only 10% of employees in SMEs have pension contributions through salary sacrifice exceeding the cap. Exempting small and medium-sized enterprises in the way suggested by the amendment would therefore introduce significant additional complexity into the tax system and would be disproportionate given the limited impact that this policy is expected to have on these businesses. The Government are engaging with employers and other industry stakeholders ahead of these changes coming in.

Similarly, Amendments 26 and 27 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, would require a review of the impact of the Act on small and medium-sized enterprises. As I have already said, the Government agree about the importance of supporting small businesses. The changes in the Bill will mainly impact larger employers, which are much more likely to use salary sacrifice and to have employees who are contributing above the £2,000 cap.

More widely, the Government are delivering the most comprehensive package of support for small and medium-sized businesses in a generation through the small business strategy, unlocking billions of pounds in finance to support businesses to invest and removing unnecessary red tape. Ahead of the cap coming into operation, the Government will continue to work closely with employers, payroll administrators and other stakeholders to ensure that the changes are implemented in the least burdensome way for businesses of all sizes currently using salary sacrifice.

In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, if the Government truly wish to support SMEs and charities, they should not press ahead with a measure that those enterprises have told us—I gave a great deal of evidence, and we have heard this from others as well—will damage them, increase their operating costs and complexity and reduce their ability to offer options to their employees. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, put the case well.

The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, with his unique experience of SME businesses, reminded us of the dire situation facing SMEs, with significant numbers closing down, as one can see on almost any high street. My noble friend Lord Ashcombe emphasised the cumulative effect and rightly added energy prices to the problems that SMEs and charities are facing. The Bill will raise employment costs at a time when companies are already stretched to boiling point.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, illustrated the problem with information drawn from the impact of NICs on his business, which I found particularly compelling. He is very keen to have the hope—I think that is the right word—that will arise from the proposed review. My noble friend Lord Mackinlay reminded us of the large number of NEETs who are out of work, as well as of how we now have higher youth unemployment than the EU, generating what he referred to as a tipping point.

My noble friend rightly raised—I hope that the Minister will come back on this—the key unanswered question of whether the £2,000 cap will apply per employee across multiple employments. We must have an answer on that because it will make a great deal of difference, especially to smaller operations. I am impressed by the fact that, for the first time, my noble friend has agreed to support a carve-out for SMEs and charities, on which I have campaigned for the past 11 years.

The Minister and I have often exchanged views on SMEs, but this is an opportunity for him to make a concrete change to the Government’s policy on this matter, do something to show that the Government listen to SMEs and small social enterprises and provide them with a bit of relief from the mountain of complexities piled on them. I urge the Government to think again and make a positive change to the Bill in this area. It would not be expensive, but it would protect jobs and businesses, help our economy and, above all, reduce compliance costs for both this vital sector and the officials who are taxed with policing the changes and gathering revenue.

Lastly, I reiterate my support for the review of SME recruitment and retention proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in the light of the cumulative NICs changes that we have seen over the past 18 months. Like her, I hope that the Government are listening. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will, I think, want to revert to the position of SMEs and charities when we come back on Report later in the spring.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.

I turn first to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which seeks the publication of illustrative projections of lifetime pension saving values before and after this change. The Government do not agree that this amendment is necessary to provide the required information on personal pension saving outcomes. The impacts of the measures in the Bill, including on employees and employers, are already set out in the tax information and impact note published alongside the Bill’s introduction.

Additionally, the Government published a policy costing note, which includes detail on the tax base and static costing as well as a summary of the behavioural responses expected by individuals and employers. The Office for Budget Responsibility has set out impacts in its economic and fiscal outlook, making it clear that it does not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of the tax changes made in the Budget. Similarly, there are already a number of existing tools and services that individuals can use to understand their personal financial position and estimate their potential retirement income.

Amendments 29 and 30, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord de Clifford, would require the Government to take advice examining the impact of this change on employers, pension adequacy and workers’ pay. They also seek to make commencement of the Act conditional on the publication of an independent review of its effects, including on pension adequacy. The impacts of this measure have already been set out across the range of usual publications for changes to national insurance; these include the published tax information and impact note and policy costings note, as well as the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook.

These amendments raise a wider point about the role of salary sacrifice in the pension salary saving system, particularly in relation to incentivising saving and improving pension adequacy. It is important to place this measure in context. Salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet, during this period, there were falls in private sector pension saving. The key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years, as many noble Lords have noted in this debate, is automatic enrolment. As a result of automatic enrolment, more than 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.

Although all of us here share a commitment to improving pension adequacy, many groups at higher risk of under-saving—including the self-employed, low earners and women—are not the most likely to benefit from salary sacrifice. Only one in five self-employed people save into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but higher earners are more likely to be using salary sacrifice. Many women are under-saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.

The pensions tax relief system remains hugely generous, and there remain significant incentives to save into a pension. The £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief that the Government currently provide on pensions each year will be entirely unaffected by these changes.

Given the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

We will finish at 7.45 pm.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Sorry—I was advised that there is no agreement beyond 7.45 pm.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Well, I have been told that there is no agreement beyond 7.45 pm. I do not have a Whip in here.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

What happens if we do not finish this group?

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, my amendment in this group seeks to make the commencement of this Act conditional upon the publication of an independent review of its impact on employers.

The Government’s decision to cap national insurance relief on salary sacrifice pension contributions at £2,000 per year has been presented as a measure targeted at higher earners, but the reality, as those of us who have spoken to businesses up and down the country know, is rather more complicated than that. This is not simply a matter of adjusting the tax affairs of a few well-paid executives. This measure hits employers directly and in ways that Ministers have not thus far adequately costed or explained. For small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, the costs are not trivial. Many have structured their entire remuneration and pensions offerings around salary sacrifice arrangements. They have done so because it is administratively straightforward, it benefits their staff, and it has had the backing of the previous Government as a sensible way to encourage workplace pension saving. Those businesses now face not only higher employer national insurance costs but also the compliance burden of unpicking arrangements that may have been in place for years.

Let us be plain about what this means for a small business. We are talking about firms with perhaps 20 or 30 staff, businesses that do not have large HR departments or in-house tax teams. They will need to review every employment contract, revisit their payroll systems and, in many cases, seek professional advice to understand their new obligations. What is particularly troubling is that we have not seen from the Government anything approaching a comprehensive assessment of these impacts. We know that HMRC consulted last year, but it got a dusty answer. The OBR has produced some high-level revenue estimates, which do not reassure us, and we know from the Treasury note that it expects this measure to raise several billion pounds by the end of the Parliament. But what we have not seen, and what employers and employees alike are entitled to expect, is a proper independent analysis of what this means in practice, especially for SMEs and middle-income employees.

There has been no serious attempt to model the indirect costs, the effect on employer pension contributions, the likelihood that firms will scale back their own contributions to compensate for higher tax costs, or the impact on workforce retention where salary sacrifice has been used as a recruitment and benefits tool. The OBR itself has acknowledged significant uncertainty in its projections, noting that revenue yields are highly sensitive to behavioural change—a very important point—and yet the Government press ahead without the evidence base one would expect for a measure of this scale.

My concern—which is shared by a range of voices in the pensions industry and in business groups and among those who have looked carefully at the measure— is that, in restricting salary sacrifice without proper analysis, the Government risk undermining the very pension-saving behaviours they claim in other contexts to support. As the ABI has put it, savers and the pension system need stability. What we should not be doing is swapping pension stability for short-term revenue raisers.

The Minister has cited a number of statistics on the numbers whom HMT anticipates will be affected, but these fail to recognise that the Government have almost no idea of how employers and, therefore, employees would respond and be affected by those changes. As I have already mentioned, the OBR has said that there is a high level of uncertainty over the size of the behavioural response. If an employer stops offering a salary sacrifice because of the compliance costs and complexity, as many of them have warned they will, then every one of their employees will be affected. So how can the Minister say that 74% of basic rate taxpayers will be left unaffected when HMT has no idea how the organisations employing them will react to the Bill? Indeed, the detail is still unclear. The point many noble Lords have raised stands: the Bill brings a great deal of uncertainty, and the Treasury does not understand the wider effects of what it is proposing—thus my wish to delay commencement until we have a clearer view.

I welcome Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which references the OBR’s supplementary forecasts. I do not want to steal her thunder, but the issues this forecast raises are numerous. Of particular concern are the behavioural changes that it anticipates. The OBR estimates that behaviour reduces the 2030-31 yield by around 48% compared with the static figure. Employers are assumed to redirect pay growth into employer contributions, employees are assumed to shift into relief at source or net pay arrangements, and there are additional pass-through effects into wages and profits. In other words, nearly half the static yield depends on assumptions about how employers and employees respond. The options open to employees and employers are numerous, and they have three years to think about it.

Another serious concern highlighted is that HMRC does not hold comprehensive data on salary sacrifice usage. As we understand it, the modelling used by the OBR relies heavily on ASHE survey data and historic APSS 107 returns to estimate bonus sacrifice behaviour. The OBR therefore assigns this measure a medium-high uncertainty rating with particular uncertainty around behavioural responses and the size of the bonus sacrifice base. This policy is uncertain. How will it affect savings, how will it affect behaviour and, significantly, how much will it raise and for how long?

I know others may have questions for the Minister, but the new arrangements come into operation in 2029-30 and, as we have all been saying, there is time for more questions to be asked and answered and for more work to be done. I hope the Minister will look at these various amendments positively. I thank the Deputy Chairman for his clarification on timing, and I beg to move.

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I will first address Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. I agree on the importance of transparency on the impact of this policy, including on employers. However, an additional publication is not necessary to achieve that objective. A number of documents have already been published in line with the usual practice for national insurance contribution changes, which comprehensively set out the impacts of this measure, including on employers.

The tax information and impact note was published alongside the introduction of the Bill. This sets out the number of employers expected to be impacted by this measure, the one-off costs—including familiarisation with the change, the training of staff and updating of software—and the expected continuing costs, including performing more calculations, and recording and providing additional information to HMRC, where salary sacrifice schemes continue to be used. This equates to a one-off £75 and an ongoing £99 per business per year. The Government also published a policy costing note, which includes detail on the costing of the measures, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of the behavioural responses expected by individuals and employers.

The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the Government’s policy costing. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note, which provided additional information that it received in last year’s Budget to further increase the transparency of this measure. Taken together, these publications already provide an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of employer impacts.

On Amendment 32, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and its supplementary forecast—

Lord Livermore (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, as I have already said, it has been published in various places, and I do not see the need to bring that into one place, as the noble Lord asked.

On Amendment 32, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and its supplementary forecast publications set out how behavioural responses have been considered in certifying the costing. Some of these behavioural assumptions were also published in the policy costing note accompanying the Budget. The supplementary forecast information was drawn from analysis and data supplied to the OBR by the Government ahead of Budget 2025, in line with the standard process by which the OBR scrutinises and certifies costings. The Government’s published costings therefore already reflect these behavioural effects, and the OBR has certified these costings in the usual way. Given that the material reference is already publicly available and has been fully reflected in the certified policy costings, it is not necessary to review the OBR’s supplementary forecast.

If the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, will forgive me, I will write to him with the answer to his specific question. In the meantime, given the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—a shorter debate than we probably needed—and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for drawing out so clearly the scale of the uncertainty that we are facing here.

The Minister has referred to various costings and has described them as conventional, but the truth is that the tax impact notes that have been published are inadequate, as indeed were parallel information notes published last year when we were discussing the national insurance changes of £25 billion. As a result, the consequences we are now seeing in the economy were not, to my mind, adequately flagged up.

However, where a policy is acknowledged by the OBR to carry medium to high uncertainty, and where almost half of the projected yield depends on a behavioural response that is not known in advance, I think the data that we have is incomplete. It is therefore reasonable to pause and require an independent assessment, and we have time for that. The alternative is that the Government legislate blind and then ignore the impact of the measures they take, as they did last year. In this case, of course, it will be a long time before we know the impact, because the measures will come into play in 2029-30.

In matters of pension saving and employment costs, stability and predictability are essential. If the Government are confident in their policy, they should have nothing to fear from the independent scrutiny that we have proposed. But time is late; we have reached the witching hour, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.