National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:24 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 326 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:39 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 194 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names or “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman”.
Clause 1
Employer pensions contributions pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements: Great Britain
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 10, after “income tax” insert—
“at the higher or additional rate”.
This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, page 2, line 26, leave out from “as” to end and insert—
“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).
(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.
(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”
This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “income tax” insert—
“at the higher or additional rate”.
This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland from the £2,000 cap.
Amendment 8, page 3, line 39, leave out from “as” to end and insert—
“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).
(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.
(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”
This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap in Northern Ireland by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—Review of impact on SME recruitment and retention—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to the—
(a) recruitment of staff, and
(b) retention of staff.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff.
New clause 2—Review of impact on small and medium-sized business tax liabilities—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to—
(a) businesses’ overall tax burden,
(b) employment costs, and
(c) business solvency.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the overall tax burden and employment costs faced by SMEs.
New clause 3—Review of impact on employee marginal tax rates—
“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on the number of employees brought into a higher marginal rate of income tax.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must give particular regard to the impact of the freezing of income tax thresholds between April 2022 and April 2031.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the number of employees who move into a higher tax band due the increase in their taxable income due to the effects of this Bill.
New clause 4—Reviews of the impact of the Act—
“(1) The Treasury must, before March 2029, lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act.
(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the adequacy of pension contributions made by or on behalf of individuals affected by this Act,
(b) use of salary sacrifice schemes and optional remuneration arrangements, and
(c) any effects on the investment capability of UK pension funds.
(3) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a follow-up assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act before March 2034.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to undertake an impact assessment of the effect of the change made under this Act, before they take effect, and again five years later.
New clause 5—Calculation and publication of lifetime pension values—
“(1) The Treasury must calculate and publish the projected lifetime value of an individual’s pension before and after the changes made by under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the projected lifetime value is the total amount of pension income an individual is expected to receive over their lifetime.
(3) The calculations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) be based on clearly stated assumptions, and
(b) include illustrative examples covering different pension entitlements.”
New clause 6—Assessment of changes to pension saving through salary sacrifice schemes—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 15 months of the provisions of this Act coming into effect, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effect of this Act on the amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes.
(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must include an—
(a) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months preceding the provisions of this Act coming into effect,
(b) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months following the provisions of this Act coming into effect, and
(c) an assessment of the difference between those amounts.”
Mark Garnier
It is a great pleasure to be with you yet again, Ms Nokes. I enjoyed our last sparring with the Pensions Minister just before Christmas, which cheered us up to no end.
Let me speak to amendments 5, 7, 6 and 8 as well as new clause 4, which all stand in my name. It will not surprise the Pensions Minister to hear that we are not at all happy with this Bill, which actually will do nothing to enhance pension savings. I will go through each of our amendments in the reverse order of importance.
New clause 4 would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill, should it receive Royal Assent, before and after its implementation in 2029. We think it is important that the Government do their homework before implementing policies. We asked for something similar in the Pension Schemes Bill, but the Pensions Minister described it as unnecessary. In this case, the Government seem not to have listened to industry, to experts or to savers. Our new clause asks the Government to do that, so that we can better understand the impact. First, how will the Bill affect pensions adequacy? That will be after the pensions review has concluded, so we do need to know. Secondly, how many people use salary sacrifice or optional remuneration arrangements? Thirdly, what are the investment capability of UK pensions?
There has been a certain amount of commentary on this matter. The Association of British Insurers has said:
“We have consistently raised concerns about the potential impact of a cap on pension salary sacrifice on both people’s savings and employers’ resources.”
There are some issues that are of great concern to many people on this matter, so have the Government fully considered the knock-on effect that it will have on investment from UK pension funds? Also, will the Government update the terms of reference for the pensions commissioner, which is being led by Baroness Drake, to ensure that this is considered?
We are unlikely to press new clause 4 to a vote. However, I believe that the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5 would have a similar effect. Should the Liberal Democrats wish to move the new clause, we would support it.
Amendments 7 and 8 concern the indexation of the cap. These amendments look to make the £2,000 cap naturally rise in line with the consumer prices index. We have brought these amendments forward because if the cap remains static, it will become increasingly meaningless. We have seen today, when we have had an above-expectation inflation rise of 3.4%, that would clearly devalue the value of the cap, even by the time that it is implemented in 2029. Our amendments seek to address that so that salary sacrifice arrangements do not become redundant without parliamentary intervention. Obviously, we use CPI because it is the basis for inflation. Again, the ABI has made a similar argument, as the cap does not allow for inflationary changes. Having said that, we do not propose to press those amendments.
Let me move on to amendments 5 and 6, which we feel particularly strongly about. They are mirror arrangements for each other. Importantly, we are trying to make what we feel is a very poor Bill into something that is less poor. The amendments would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from the £2,000 cap. They would support the group in the UK that typically under-saves and is the least prepared for retirement. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, a quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, who will be hit by the changes that this Bill brings in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap.
More fundamental to that is the fact that this group of people—lower-paid workers—will be hit disproportionately hard. Salary sacrifice allows an employee to give up a certain amount of their salary to be contributed to their pension directly by the employer. We all understand that, but it not only takes advantage of the income tax allowance, as with all pension contributions, but allows national insurance contributions to be included and transferred into the pension, in the case of an employee national insurance, and allows for employer national insurance to be used at the discretion of the employer.
The employee element—the national insurance that we all pay as employees—is the important part of this matter. While higher rate taxpayers will continue to enjoy 40% tax relief at their higher rate, the national insurance is just 2 percentage points—around one-twentieth of the tax break on the income tax. While a basic rate taxpayer enjoys just 20% income tax breaks, their national insurance contribution is 8%. The effect on lower-paid workers is four times that on higher-paid workers. That is not a good thing—indeed, 8% is two-fifths of the value of the other contribution for which they benefit from their income tax savings.
In absolute terms, as I have said, the marginal rate is four times more expensive for lower rate taxpayers than it is for higher rate taxpayers, but there is an even bigger problem: this is a harder attack on other types of savers than we had anticipated. Another group of people affected are those paying back student loans. Graduates pay back their student loans once they pass the thresholds of £28,745, and they do so at a rate of 9%. Graduates who would otherwise enjoy that 9% that goes into student loans being paid into a pension will not see it being paid into their pension because of the salary sacrifice cap. The effective loss for a graduate paying back student loans is 9%. Graduates on the basic rate of tax will see not just a loss of 8% for their national insurance schemes, but a total loss of 17% of the benefit at the marginal level above the £2,000 cap.
The director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation agrees. 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 trying to get people to do the right thing and save for the future, it seems that the Government want to whack the lower-paid harder. Because of the way that this system works, they will whack the lower paid. They also want to whack a younger generation even harder than those who enjoyed free university education. That younger generation cannot afford to buy a house and have to pay for university education. The Government have made it far harder to get a job, with their jobs tax, and at a time when we are desperately trying to get people to save for their retirement, they are making it harder to save for a pension.
I challenge Labour MPs. Why are they being whipped to vote against these measures and against the interests of lower-paid people? Why are they being asked to vote against the interests of graduates and younger people and vote for a regressive tax?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the shadow Minister for what he is saying. This is about not just those on lower incomes, but those on middle incomes. It is about the mums and dads of the students—all this falls back on their shoulders. Does he agree that this Bill is an attack on younger people who have aspirations and hopes for the future? We should be encouraging young people and helping them, and the Government have very clearly fallen down on that.
Mark Garnier
I completely agree. That is a fundamental problem. We are doing completely the wrong thing for people who want to do the right thing. We are disincentivising people taking responsibility for their future at a time when the state pension is coming under a lot of pressure. It is expected in 11 or 12 years, I think, that less money will be paid into the pension schemes pot than is withdrawn by those of us who are approaching retirement—I declare an interest, in my own case.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
You have years to go.
Mark Garnier
I am trying to finish my speech—in fact, I had finished my speech.
This is a very important point, and we will push amendment 5 to a vote. As I said, we will challenge Labour MPs not to do the wrong thing for their constituents—for the young, hard-working graduates who are desperate to do the right thing.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
My chief concern with this Bill is that, like a lot of the measures that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, it looks like it may be a route to some medium-term increased tax revenues, but it gives no thought to longer-term consequences. That will help the Chancellor meet her fiscal rules, but I say “may” because the Bill does not kick in this year, next year, the year after or the year after that; rather conveniently, it will kick in during the election year of 2029-30. That is pretty useful if you are fighting an election and want to meet your fiscal rules, but it is not very useful if you are trying to be fiscally prudent, so that leads to some scepticism about what is actually going on here.
Given the pressures on the state pension and the social care system, it seems extremely counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to save more towards their retirement. Let us look at the impact that small businesses have warned about. Pensions UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have jointly expressed their concern that these changes will increase costs for businesses that rely on salary sacrifice to support staff retention and reward. They state:
“Higher National Insurance costs and operational disruption would make it harder to offer competitive benefits, invest in growth, or plan effectively.”
We need to remember the wider context that small businesses are operating in. Even before this Bill, they were battling the sharply rising costs of everything from rents to energy bills, supplies, business rates, the costs of Brexit and so on, and they also have to adjust to the changes in their NICs bills that the Chancellor announced a year ago. One can imagine how that must feel for small business owners—the additional burden heaped on them feels unsustainable.
This Bill is a double whammy on last year’s national insurance hikes—the NICs burden went up last year due to the rate increase, and now this measure is raising their NICs bills for a second time. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on businesses, and on small businesses in particular. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments requiring the Government to publish full assessments of the impact of the Bill on the recruitment and retention and the tax liabilities of businesses.
Let us now consider the potential damage that this choice will do further down the road by disincentivising saving. Earlier this year, research by Scottish Widows found that 39% of people in the UK are not on track for a minimum lifestyle in retirement, which is a 4% increase since 2023. Research showed that people were actually saving more towards their pension in the last year, but projected retirement income was still failing to keep pace, given the rising cost of living.
Chris Vince
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), challenged Labour MPs to champion their constituencies. One of the biggest concerns I have about pensions in my constituency of Harlow is the number of people who are not paying into any pension at all, particularly those who are self-employed or lower earners. Does the Liberal Democrat spokesperson agree that the real conversation that we in this place need to be having about pensions is how we encourage people in my constituency and beyond to save for their futures, which I think is what he is suggesting?
Charlie Maynard
I absolutely agree—well said.
The Government may well say that the Bill will not affect low earners, who are likely not to be saving £2,000 in a given year, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) has just said. However, that is too simplistic a way to look at this issue. The impact assessment by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions—that is around 25% of all employees. Of these, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. That leaves millions of middle earners who are already feeling a significant squeeze as a result of myriad other cost of living pressures, who have had their taxes raised by the previous Conservative Government, and who are now facing an even greater hit due to this Government’s jobs tax and the extension of frozen income tax thresholds. If this Bill discourages those people from putting money away for their safety net in later life, the Treasury will pay the price in the long run.
Before the Budget, the Association of British Insurers warned that two in five Brits will save less in their pension if a cap on salary sacrifice schemes is introduced. With social care budgets also stretched to breaking point, we should be doing everything we can to incentivise people who are able to put money aside for a comfortable and supported retirement to do so. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales pointed out in its response:
“At a time when there is a pensions commission considering the adequacy of pension saving, this demonstrates a lack of joined-up thinking from the government.”
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the reminder of the excellent debate we had before the Christmas break. I thank him and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for their contributions. I will briefly reiterate the case for the three short and perfectly formed clauses of this Bill before focusing my remarks on the hon. Members’ amendments.
As hon. Members know, this reform was inevitable. We have had a detailed discussion of the last Government’s secret plan to implement a very similar proposal—the “secret plan” label came from the Conservative party, not Government Front Benchers—and the cost of pensions salary sacrifice was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2030. That is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. The status quo is also hard to defend when low earners and the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK are entirely excluded, reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Minister will recall our many happy hours together in Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill. One of the issues that the Liberal Democrats raised was the need for an MOT for people as they approach pension age, to see how their pension is going and test its adequacy. Does the Minister accept that putting these stark restrictions in place will significantly restrict the ability of somebody who realises that they are running out of time to make additional contributions to their pension to get to a better place? Would he consider extra flexibility, so that people could perhaps use 10-year allowances in three years?
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I remind Members that the scope of this Bill is very narrow indeed, and we really ought not to be bringing in new concepts.
Torsten Bell
Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will follow your advice, but will try to respond to some of the hon. Member’s points when I address the question of how we have gone about making the changes that this Bill introduces.
As I have said, change is inevitable, but it is important to take a pragmatic approach, which is my answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). The Bill is pragmatic in that it continues to allow £2,000 to be salary sacrificed free of any NICs charge, ensuring that 95% of those earning £30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected. It is pragmatic in that it gives employers and the industry four years to prepare.
Chris Vince
The Minister has said that the cost to the Exchequer of the salary sacrifice scheme is going to triple by the end of this decade. Does he agree that that is unsustainable for the Treasury, and also that we in this Chamber have to get real? The reason why people in my constituency of Harlow cannot even begin to think about pensions or savings is that they are living day to day. What this Government need to do is tackle the cost of living crisis, and that is what they are doing.
Torsten Bell
In a shock move, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Members of those parties who have said that they intend to vote against this Bill today cannot keep coming to this Chamber, day after day, calling for additional spending in more areas, while opposing any means of raising taxes. [Interruption.] Well, you have raised the welfare budget, and without trying—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. First, I have not raised anything. Secondly, we are not here to debate the welfare budget. This is a very narrow Bill with limited scope. The Minister can listen to the same strictures I have given to other Members.
Torsten Bell
I am listening to every word of your strictures, Ms Nokes. This Bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax-advantaged. I say gently to Members who do not agree with the detail of this Bill that they should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving that there is not already a strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing. Clause 1 provides for that pragmatic approach in Great Britain. Clause 2 does the same for Northern Ireland, and clause 3 provides for the territorial extent and start date of these measures.
I will turn more substantively to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Witney. At one level, I was glad to see amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the shadow Minister, which aim to exempt basic rate taxpayers. It shows the Opposition, as part of the secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of that looks like. In many ways, the amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, will mean that 95% of those earning less than £30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Minister explain what is pragmatic about withdrawing a 2p in the pound tax relief from a higher rate taxpayer without a student loan, while withdrawing a 17p in the pound tax relief from a basic rate taxpayer who happens to have a student loan?
Torsten Bell
The pragmatic approach is to allow people to continue with salary sacrifice up to £2,000 and to not bring in the measure for four years, so that people have time to adjust. Opposition Members will need to justify wanting to spend more than is being spent on the Royal Air Force on that—I sat through Prime Minister’s questions today, and I heard people calling for more defence spending—while not being able to live up to what that requires, which is taking seriously that we spend tax reliefs effectively. For everybody, there will still be a strong tax incentive to save into their pension.
Taking the approach that the Opposition propose, rather than our proposed cap, would likely be impossible to implement in practice and add unnecessary complexity. That is not least because employers would in many cases not know which employees would end up being basic rate taxpayers. They certainly would not know for sure until the end of the financial year, or at least late on into it.
Amendments 7 and 8 would uprate the cap by inflation. The Government have set out our policy intent for a £2,000 cap to be introduced in April 2029, with the timing driven by the desire to give everyone time to adjust. In that context, it does not make sense to index that cap ahead of 2029. Our view is that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for Budgets in those decades—or at least significantly closer to them. I know that Members are keen to start debating the 2031 Budget, but having heard from Ms Nokes, I think we should leave that for another day.
Our approach is consistent with the one that this House has taken under Governments of all three main parties, which is to have key elements of the pension tax system that are not routinely indexed, including the annual allowance. It is of course right that this and all Governments will want to keep the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet the objectives we have set out today.
Several of the new clauses probe at the impact of the changes. The Government have published a tax information and impact note alongside the Bill. It sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer, the economy and individuals and businesses. It also provides an overview of the equality impacts.
New clauses 1 and 2 focus on SMEs. I have heard suggestions—this has been gently hinted at today—that SMEs are more likely to be affected. The opposite is true. Only 39% of employers offer pension salary sacrifices, and small businesses are less likely to do so than larger businesses. Indeed, the status quo puts SMEs at a disadvantage relative to their larger competitors, which is the opposite of the point that the hon. Member for Witney wanted to make.
New clause 3 focuses on marginal tax rates, but the changes in the Bill do not directly affect a person’s marginal tax. Those wanting to make pension contributions to keep their taxable income below a certain level can continue to do so, and I have read much misleading commentary on that point.
New clause 4 proposes an impact assessment of the changes before they take effect and five years after. I again commend the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who is showing admirable zeal for supporting the argument that I made on Second Reading that any responsible Government should keep the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review to ensure that they are delivering efficiently on their objectives. That is the exact thought pattern that identified this relief as needing reform. I look forward to the shadow Minister changing his mind and supporting our measures. The Government should and will continue to keep this and all taxes and tax reliefs under review, rather than singling this particular relief out via primary legislation.
I turn briefly to new clauses 5 and 6, which focus on the impact on pension savings. I can reassure the Committee that the Office for Budget Responsibility has set out that it does not expect any material impact on savings as a result of the Budget 2025 tax changes. I hope that these remarks reassure Members on the points that their amendments have raised. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Torsten Bell
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, creating a power to apply employer and employee national insurance contributions on salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. Reform of this type, as I have said, was inevitable. The cost to the Exchequer of salary sacrifice pension schemes was due to almost treble by 2030 without reform. The Government are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to that reform: first, by introducing a cap so that ordinary workers are, in the vast majority of cases, unaffected; secondly, by giving employers, employees and providers a long lead-in time, so that everybody has plenty of time to prepare; and thirdly, by ensuring that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, remains hugely tax-advantageous. The Government continue to provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance relief on pension contributions each year. Employer pension contributions will remain the most tax-advantaged part of the system.
In this debate and others on pensions, we have heard strong cross-party consensus that greater pension adequacy is important. We all look at the forecasts for private pension income and see that they show lower private pension income on average for those retiring in 2050 relative to those retiring today. That is not an acceptable place to be. Answering that question is the job of the Pensions Commission, which we have put in place with cross-party support. It is rightly examining the question of retirement income adequacy and fairness. I gently note that those groups that we all agree are under-saving for retirement, such as low earners and the self-employed, are precluded from using salary sacrifice or are much less likely to use it than other groups.
Part of what we are doing through the Bill is delivering badly needed reforms to the tax system alongside other measures from the Budget. These measures are what it takes to keep waiting lists falling, cut borrowing and cut energy bills in the years ahead. Those who do not wish to support changes like these cannot have it both ways and call for additional spending, additional support on energy bills and the rest.
More generally, it is important that we all consider the effectiveness of tax reliefs in the system, which cost a cumulative £500 billion a year. If we defend the status quo, even in the face of tax reliefs, which are hard to justify and whose costs are rising significantly, that means that higher taxes for everybody else. We are not prepared to see that happen.
Indeed, I am sure that in their hearts the Opposition parties also believe that these reforms are necessary. As a test of that, I invite the shadow Minister to stand up and commit to reversing the changes if—though it is very unlikely—the Conservatives ever happen to form a Government again. I am 100% sure that he will not do that, because he knows that these changes need to be made. On the basis of what should be cross-party support, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Pensions Minister is absolutely right that there is an awful lot that we agree on. It is always a great pleasure to spar with him and agree on certain things, but this Bill is not one of them. Let me be clear why we disagree with the Minister.
First, the contributors to the research done by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were absolutely against this Bill. The report, which was published last year and which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, concluded that all the hypothetical scenarios explored in the research, including the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively. It also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated option presented. Given that the Government tabled no amendments to address the genuine concerns of savers and industry, it seems that the Minister is still apparently chuffed that he is implementing a policy that is, at best, the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment.
Secondly, the Government are voting for a Bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses. The pensions system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public. That is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee does not fall below the national living wage. But what are the Government doing? They are going for the option that the report considered to be the most complicated.
The Government are choosing to confuse with complications a system that is currently the simplest to deliver. The changes will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers—and this comes at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. What about the effects on businesses, which see a 15% employer national insurance bonus through helping people to save? The changes will mean that employers will be hit with a 15% increase on the costs of employment.
The savings that employers achieve through salary sacrifice arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses, including through increased pension contributions to all employees, higher wages, or more investment into plant and machinery for growth. That is a good thing. The Government are now taking money away from the productive part of the economy and putting it into other parts. No wonder businesses think that this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless Government, who forget that businesses are the ones that create wealth in our economy, add value to it and drive growth.
Thirdly, the Government are supporting a Bill that will not actually raise the stated revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) pointed out when winding up on Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029-30: the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. That is £4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor’s black hole—she will have one by then—in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule. This is a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. Frankly, it is also likely that the Government will not raise anywhere near the £4.8 billion budgeted for, as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029; and, in any event, people are figuring out a workaround.
Fourthly, the Government are voting for a Bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals estimates that over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues—something that the Government apparently seek to target with this policy. And I always thought that Labour Governments were meant to be on the side of working people, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Fifthly, and finally, the Government are voting for a Bill that will make the impending pension adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people are not saving enough, so why make the second largest revenue-raising measure of last year’s Budget one that goes after people’s savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. More importantly, it goes against the Government’s own financial inclusion strategy.
As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out in November,
“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”
How does the Bill accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won’t, because it disincentivises employees from saving more in their pensions and it disincentivises employers from providing it as an option in the first place.
Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. We gave the Government a chance to address some of those concerns earlier, and they did not take it. We hear all those concerns loud and clear from businesses, savers and all the rest of them, which is why we want the Government to think again on this issue and why we will vote against this Bill on Third Reading.
People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than restricting the options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives that encourage people to save more. Instead, the Government are pushing through a Bill that will do the opposite. It is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement by punishing the 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. Worst of all, it breaks another of Labour’s manifesto promises: that it will not increase taxes on working people. It remains the wrong policy to pursue, and that is why we will vote against it.
Charlie Maynard
I will let it pass from here.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.