National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
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.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I shall congratulate my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Amendments 1 and 2, then I will speak to my Amendments 3 and 16.
This Bill has a number of disadvantages to the economy and society, as it penalises pension saving and retirement security while, of course, leading to higher costs and a higher administrative burden for employers. It may also lead to some employers reducing pension generosity or even scrapping salary sacrifice schemes altogether, so it may well discourage and disincentivise good behaviour. One has to question whether the limited expected tax yield justifies the cost, particularly as we know that behavioural response will reduce the amount of tax generated, and it simply is not fair for many people, disproportionately affecting certain groups such as savers and lower-income earners.
However, the Government cannot argue that it was in their manifesto, because it was not. In fact, it was the reverse—the manifesto pledged no increases in tax, including national insurance. We can argue that it is important that we have a very good look at certain aspects of this Bill and try to point out its shortcomings, together with making some constructive and, I hope, helpful amendments. After all, it looks like some 44% of employees using salary sacrifice for pensions will be impacted by this measure. It is important that we look at the Bill in detail, as the Society of Pension Professionals—SPP—has warned the Government that planned restrictions to salary sacrifice could reduce retirement saving and increase costs for hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of workers. The SPP has warned that the changes are likely to reduce pension savings at a time when government figures already show that 15 million people are not saving enough for adequate retirement; that rises to 25 million if the state pension triple lock is removed.
The Reward and Employee Benefits Association has warned that this Bill will put strain on businesses and push millions of people into poorer retirement. In a survey it undertook, an overwhelming 99% of businesses said the organisation would be affected by the cap and 70% said this Bill would increase the administrative burden. Furthermore, a third of businesses expect the change will make it difficult for them to attract and retain talent. It has been described as a change from sleepwalking into a retirement crisis into speedwalking into one.
I appreciate that all I have said is somewhat of a preamble, but it needs to be said, and it will be said by me only once, although it applies to all the amendments we will discuss today and possibly on Thursday—although I gather the plan now is to curtail debate today if at all practical. Is the noble Lord waving at me? Does he not know either? Fair enough. I always pay attention to Government Whips waving at me.
I turn to Amendments 3 and 16—parallel amendments because of Northern Ireland—in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They deal with the complications this Bill brings in respect of student loans. I appreciate this is a little technical and complicated and may not be best resolved by debate in this Committee so much as by discussion between all relevant parties before Report. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for setting me up to explain it all. I will do my best but, as I say, this may be a difficult format in which so to do.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, prompted as I am by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay, may I just take a moment to remind the Committee that I am a member by qualification of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and have received very helpful briefings from it?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
May I ask for some clarification? The Government’s intention is to try to encourage higher pension contributions. If an employer decides to increase their pension contributions, how would one know that that had not been at the expense of some salary they might otherwise have paid? Would it just never be caught? Can we safely assume that increased employer pension contributions will not be caught unless there is some official paper that says, “This was instead of salary”?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
As what? It would just be an increase in pension contributions because the employer has decided to increase the amount they will provide for their staff from, say, 6% to 8%. It is nothing to do with what they are paying the staff; it is not the result of negotiation. Their standard contribution was 6% and is, perhaps, going to 8%. Some people might be concerned that that would be considered by HMRC as an optional arrangement because the pensioning contribution has gone up, although that may not have been intended. The Government’s intention is, I hope, to get employer contributions to increase.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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)
I do not understand where the problem is, because that is a good thing.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
The issue is that there seems to be a risk. Can we somehow—I am not quite clear how—clarify in the Bill in case HMRC might decide that that is caught by the Bill?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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)
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)
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 in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Can we just let the Minister reply to that?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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 Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
Is the Minister’s understanding of the Bill that the £2,000 threshold will be in the entirety of a single employee or across each employment? At the moment, with NI regulations the employee benefits from different thresholds in each employment that is held. That means that with less than £12,570 in each multiple employment no employee national insurance is paid at all. Is the intention for it to be £2,000 in total across any number of employments, or £2,000 per employment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That intention will be set out in the regulations once we have fully consulted relevant employers.
Lord Fuller (Con)
There is a transfer of risk, of prejudice, from the individual, who is responsible under the current arrangements, to the employer. That has not been fleshed out at all. If you have a salary sacrifice that is processed by the employer, all of a sudden that employer trespasses on the duty at the end of the tax year for the employee to put in his tax return. There has been a muddying of the water here between the employee and the employer. I know we are going to come back on Report, and I hope we will get it done in a day, but the Government should lay out their approach to this and state where the liability sits and where the penalties may be applied for honest mistakes made in that interface between the employer and the employee. That is not at all clear, and it should be.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his further thoughts. The carryover feature—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I do not want to be problematic here, but I wonder whether the Minister can understand that we are looking at a very different Bill and very different implications if the £2,000 contribution limit is per individual across a range of employments, or per job, and perhaps they have three or four. It is a fundamental difference, and while the details of how things would be done in the future and the operational issues may well have to wait for regulation, guidance and consultation, it seems to me that that core issue defines this Bill, and we should know that before we complete its passage.
Lord Livermore
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 Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, this debate has been very helpful because it has sort of blown a hole in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, summed it up rightly: what has happened is that the Government started with the answer and then tried to find the question. In other words, they were desperately looking to find £4 billion from somewhere and came up with this random salary sacrifice idea. Why salary sacrifice? Why not say that NI on pensions does not apply over X amount and limit it that way? I am afraid that the Bill just does not work.
For example, in the case I raised about a new employee where an employer is negotiating over X amount of salary or Y amount of pension, is that a salary sacrifice? The Minister could not answer that. On the £2,000 cap, the Minister could not answer. He could not answer on the collective bargaining point or whether a bonus applies. On how we deal with multiple employments, I do not think that was satisfactorily answered. I also think that the spreading point was not satisfactorily answered.
I take the point that this provision is not scheduled to come in until April 2029. I respectfully make the point that we might all be busy then on other matters but, given that the earliest is April 2029, is it not right now to pause the Bill, work constructively with us and many others who have much greater knowledge, certainly than people on this Bench, and to think through how we might find a constructive way forward? Just hoping that we might get it right in regulation is bypassing democracy. It is the purpose of the House of Lords to examine Bills, make constructive suggestions, identify and highlight holes and issues, and seek to amend them. It is fair enough that this is what the Government want to do, but they have to be clear as to how it works before the Bill goes through.
I suspect the Government will find fierce opposition to the Bill as it is on Report from a large number of people in the House, so one would hope that the Government will pause, reflect, consider and consult—on the Bill, not in regulations—to enable us to get this right. The Minister is very good at putting himself in our shoes and has done so to some extent, and I hope that he will do so again in respect of these amendments. I particularly hope that Amendment 29A comes in, so that a future Chancellor can produce a report. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 4.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is worth reminding ourselves that this legislation was prompted by a document published in May last year with this eye-catching title: Understanding the Attitudes and Behaviours of Employers Towards Salary Sacrifice for Pensions. It concluded:
“All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”,
including the £2,000 cap, were “viewed negatively” by those interviewed. It said that the changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits for employees and disincentivise saving for a pension. The report came to the conclusion that, of the three proposed hypothetical options for change, the £2,000 cap was no more than the least bad option.
As has been discussed here, even the OBR has stated that, in the first year in which this measure bites, there will be an estimated revenue of £4.48 billion from the Bill, but it will drop in the next year to £2.6 billion. That is a massive fall in revenue. Should HM Treasury not be worried about this? Should it not be asking itself, “How can we bring in something that leads to a drop in revenue of 50% in year 1?”? The taxpayer wants to know. Could an assessment be done of whether this is likely to be the case in some of the scenarios set out in these amendments—in particular, the £5,000 and the £10,000? I do not know this, because I do not have the resources to do that, but I suspect that, although bringing the cap in at £5,000 and £10,000 would not lead to the £4.48 billion in year 1, it would lead to a much more consistent figure in the subsequent years, for the long-term benefit of the country. As my noble friend Lord Mackinlay said, it will be a bit of a sugar rush and will force people to make most unfortunate changes in their patterns of savings, which the Government cannot be keen to see happen.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, as many noble Lords have made clear in their remarks on this group, the policy as currently drafted operates as a rather untargeted tax. Introducing indexation by RPI or CPI—described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as the goose and gander amendment—would be a straightforward and proportionate step that the Government could take now to mitigate what I can only assume is an unintended consequence. We on these Benches would also support the higher limits proposed by noble Lords and noble Baronesses today to mitigate behavioural changes that may undermine the objectives of this initiative or the Bill entirely.
The Minister has heard a range of constructive proposals this afternoon as to how this issue might be addressed. I very much hope he has listened carefully to the strength of feeling across the Committee and that he will give serious consideration to adopting one of these solutions. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(5) The amendments made by this section do not apply where the employer—(a) is a small or medium-sized enterprise, or(b) is a charity or social enterprise which meets the conditions in subsection (6).(6) The conditions are that—(a) the employer meets the definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise in section 465 of the Companies Act 2006, and(b) the employment is carried out wholly or mainly for the purposes of that charity or social enterprise.(7) In this section—“charity” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Charities Act 2011;“social enterprise” means an undertaking which—(a) has as its primary purpose the achievement of social or environmental objectives, and(b) principally reinvests its profits for those purposes;“small or medium-sized enterprise” has the meaning given by section 465 of the Companies Act 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment exempts small and medium-sized enterprises, and small and medium-sized charities and social enterprises, from the provisions of the Bill in Great Britain.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
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.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to all of the amendments in this group. Again, I think that they are very important. I am pleased to have added my support for my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Altrincham and Lady Kramer—if I may call her my noble friend—as well as for the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Londesborough. All of them are picking up on the huge risks that are being posed in terms of additional administrative costs, burdens and complexity for small and medium-sized businesses, charities and social enterprises, which, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe explained, have already had so many extra burdens placed on them.
I reiterate that I hope that the Minister will recognise that we need this analysis and this type of work before we make the primary legislation that we are considering here, rather than afterwards. I also hope that, if the Minister does not have ready answers, modelling or analysis that would address the issues these amendments are trying to understand in more detail, we can, as we have heard before in Committee, put some of this on hold until we have a better understanding of what the real-world impacts will be.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as we discussed at Second Reading, the Federation of Small Businesses has warned that the impact of the Bill could meaningfully disadvantage small businesses. In a way, I look at social enterprises and charities as, essentially, a subset of the SME sector. Big businesses can often devise ways and perks to reward people that are simply not available to SMEs, so they can dampen the impact of the Bill on their workforces and widen that competitive gap.
As a consequence of that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for signing Amendment 27 in my name, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for saying that he would have signed it. Frankly, when these noble Lords give warnings on what will happen and what is happening in the small business sector, I really hope that the Government are listening because, unfortunately for our economy, their track record has a real history of being correct, and those warnings need to be taken seriously.
As other noble Lords have said, SMEs are already under pressure. I am not going to repeat the saga of the burdens on them, but we have to recognise that this is a time when we absolutely need small businesses to accelerate their hiring, especially of young people, and make serious investment in productivity and growth. Once again, this is another measure where I can see no alignment between the Bill and the Government’s industrial strategy or growth policy. It seems to pull in completely the wrong direction.
Amendments 12 and 24 would straightforwardly exempt SMEs. Amendment 27 in my name would give the Government a chance to make their case, in a sense, because it would require a detailed review within 12 months of the Act being signed, which is obviously long before the Act will come into force. The review would target the two issues that we have said are so critical—SME recruitment and retention—and would also look at this matter in the context of the cumulative impact, particularly of NICs changes since this is a NICs Bill. It seems wise to encompass a look at these two NICs changes as being linked and entangled in the way they impact on small businesses.
I do not want to take up much more of the Committee’s time, but it is important to stress that this is not the time for uninformed decision-making; that has been echoed through group after group of amendments. I am not rejecting the other amendments but Amendment 27 would be a relatively modest way for the Government at least to do something that begins to put evidence before Ministers and Parliament.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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)
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 de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She has just summed up a lot of my issues, so I will keep this brief because it is late.
I will come from the perspective of one limited experience: my business. The success of auto-enrolment is fantastic, and the salary sacrifice scheme has really helped. I have 18 and 19 year-olds saving for a pension; it is only small amounts, but it really helps them. The other thing is that those who are slightly better paid find it so easy to increase their pension contributions and then pull them down again when they need their funds. I believe this Bill will be a disincentive to those people who are trying to save a bit more.
Therefore, I support this amendment, which seeks to check that we do not lose the advantages that auto-enrolment has brought to SMEs and has forced employers like me—I think back when we instigated ours—to bring in pension schemes. There is real value to that. The experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in pensions is a lot greater than mine, so I welcome a review, especially an independent one. It is so important that we start saving for our pensions. My noble friend Lord Londesborough came up with some statistics earlier and the report from his committee is important.
Those are the reasons why I support this amendment. It is essential that we continue to review how people save for their pensions.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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
“(2) The provisions of this Act, other than this section, may not come into force unless and until the conditions in subsections (2A) to (2C) are met.(2A) The Secretary of State must undertake an independent review of the impact of this Act on employers.(2B) The report must in particular consider—(a) the direct and indirect costs incurred by employers as a result of this Act,(b) the effect of the Act on employer pension contributions and the use of salary sacrifice arrangements,(c) the additional compliance costs necessitated by this Act, and(d) any consequential impacts on employment practices, workforce retention or remuneration structures.(2C) The Secretary of State must publish the report of the review and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes commencement of the Act conditional on the publication of an independent report on its impact on employers.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
There is agreement on my side that we will go on for a little while after that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Sorry—I was advised that there is no agreement beyond 7.45 pm.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
It has been agreed with the clerks and everyone that we will go beyond that to 8 pm so that we can try to get it all finished.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Well, I have been told that there is no agreement beyond 7.45 pm. I do not have a Whip in here.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We will stick with 8 pm. If we start now, we will be able to finish it by then; if not, we will not.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
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.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has relieved me of the burden of trying to explain the primary clause within my amendment, which would require a formal review and report on the OBR supplementary forecast information release. As she said, this came out on 5 February, I understand in response to an FoI request, which, frankly, is no way to provide information to Parliament. As she said, it concludes that behavioural response to the measure—and that is key to the impact that this Bill will have—is highly uncertain. The further detail that she provided is so similar to what I would have provided that I am not going to repeat it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for also signing this.
The other part of the review would cover the operational remuneration arrangements and the impact on pension adequacy and salaries. I know the Minister thought he covered this issue, but I think he could tell that in the Room uncertainty continues. Further clarification is needed around this issue because employers are going to be looking for that. This is an opportunity to provide it.
I have to say that I do not think I have ever seen an OBR report that is so filled with the word “uncertainty”. Obviously, it stands behind what it has written, but it does not feel like a report that has been written with a great deal of confidence. That confidence needs to be in place for Parliament to act on legislation.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I will very briefly add one question about the OBR forecast. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said at Second Reading that she found the timing “weird”. I certainly find it extraordinary that we have a five-year forecast of which the first three years are irrelevant—they are zero—and then we have a 48% fall in the second year. This begs the question: where are the forecasts for years three, four and five? If we are following this trend, we have a fireworks display. As the noble Lord, Lord Altrinchan, said, the Government should not be indulging in short-term fiscal levers. Where are the forecasts for those years? These measures do not actually come into effect until the financial year 2030.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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 Ashcombe (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. He has mentioned up to five different publications where this information may be found. Is it not possible for the Government to bring it into one place, so that we can actually see what the information is?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
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)
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.