Duty Relief Exemption: Small Parcels

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he makes. As I said, the EU negotiations will cover an SPS agreement, which will have significant advantages for trade and the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the EU, and help boost our exports. Similarly, the negotiations on electricity and emissions trading will have beneficial effects for businesses trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. On his question about the Windsor Framework, goods will continue to benefit from the Windsor Framework facilitations, including manufactured goods which are not within the scope of new agreements that we are taking forward with the EU. On the recent report on the Windsor Framework from the Federation of Small Businesses, as the noble Lord knows, the Government recently accepted all the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Murphy in his Independent Review of the Windsor Framework. This included recommendations that align with the points raised by a wide range of stakeholders, including those set out by the Federation of Small Businesses.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Returning to the issue of small parcels, we must ensure that all those concerned are aware of the rules governing trade with Northern Ireland, including all exporters into Northern Ireland, families sending parcels and, of course, Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, who will bear the cost, with the revenue going to the EU. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are on top of all this and will introduce the new sets of payments—the £3 duty or the £2 handling charge—alongside existing rules in a clear, unbureaucratic and timely manner? It is unclear for the individual just what they have to do.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Government are on top of it, perhaps slightly more so than the noble Baroness, given that her question was incorrect. I have already clearly said that these facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by the EU’s change to its duty relief exemption, and therefore there will be no need to pay duty.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “tax” insert “at the higher or additional rate”
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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Fuller (Con)]

If I may interject, especially with such a load of—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

12: Clause 1, page 2, line 27, at end insert—
“(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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

31: Clause 3, page 4, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(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.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We will finish at 7.45 pm.

[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)]

That is not my fault.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

What happens if we do not finish this group?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Grand Committee

Quite apart from the lack of discount, the VOA issues loom large, and I very much hope that the Minister will roll discussion of that into the other aspects of hospitality, retail and leisure discounts in his reply.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to these two closely related sets of regulations, which together established the new tiered system of business rates for the 2026 financial year. One determines which hereditaments fall into each multiplier band, and the other fixes the resulting liabilities for larger premises. I thank the Minister for his clear and careful introduction to the new rules.

Although I plan to focus elsewhere today, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others for drawing our special attention, so eloquently, to the second instrument, to the anomalous position of the recording studios and to the hikes in rates that they face. This could lead to unwelcome closures and to the expected moves of some studios abroad. I have visited Abbey Road Studios as a private citizen. Those studios are an important part of our rich art and cultural heritage, which has been referenced so many times today—indeed, I have walked across the famous zebra crossing, made of worldwide importance by the Beatles.

I am also grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its, I have to say, critical report. It was disappointed that the Government had not seen fit to publish any of the wide range of evidence and analysis it considered on the effects of the new multipliers, other than high-level data. It also sought a proper explanation of why the Government consider it fair that, apparently without advancing evidence, a low multiplier should apply to smaller RHL premises compared to non-RHL properties. I look forward to a full response from the Minister on that report.

Prior to the election, the now Prime Minister promised a regime of permanently lower business rates multipliers. Since then, the Chancellor has claimed that, on this basis, business rates are at their lowest level since 1991, yet many businesses now face substantial increases in their bills. That is why it is so profoundly misleading to characterise these changes as record low taxation by reference to multipliers. Multipliers are not the tax rate. Bills are, and it is bills that businesses have to pay and real people have to bear.

Turning to the substance of the regulations, in their first Budget, this Government chose to cut back retail, hospitality and leisure relief, a tax rise worth £1.1 billion a year. At the same time, they have locked in automatic, inflation-linked increases every year. Can the Minister explain, in specific terms, what the Government believe the cumulative effect of these decisions will be by the end of this Parliament? What modelling has the Treasury done on business closures, employment losses and investment being deferred? For SMEs, the challenge is acute. Shops, hotels and restaurants face even steeper rises. Does the Minister seriously believe that this trajectory is sustainable?

Under the new system set out in these regulations, combined with the revaluation, businesses across retail, leisure and hospitality will face higher bills and fewer businesses will benefit from relief than under the previous 40% scheme. As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, local authorities previously had greater discretion over which premises benefited. Can the Minister tell the Committee what estimate the Government have made—the Valuation Office Agency will undoubtedly have provided one—of how many businesses will lose out because that discretion has now been removed?

I turn now to the Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Qualifying Retail, Hospitality or Leisure Hereditament) Regulations, which I have looked at in combination with the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations. As confirmed in the letter sent by MHCLG to the chief finance officers of English billing authorities this very day, these set the new high-value multiplier at 50.8p, compared to a standard multiplier of 48p—an extra 2.8p in the pound.

The Government’s intention is for these measures to be directed at large online warehouses with rateable values of around £500,000 or above. However, as the provision currently stands, a greater number of retail premises will in fact be captured by the higher rate, including many of the anchor stores that play a central role in sustaining footfall and economic activity in our high streets. I remember these so well from my time at Tesco, since they were at the heart of a regeneration strategy in poorer areas that provided jobs for the unemployed and fresh fruit and vegetables, which Southampton University found materially improved health locally. The study was actually paid for by Sainsbury’s, but the outcomes were very positive.

It appears to be difficult to reconcile hitting such stores hard with the commitments made prior to the election, when it was said that business rates would be replaced with a fairer system intended to address disparities between large online operators and physical retailers. Will the Minister say why the Government are choosing to target anchor retail stores? What assessment has been made of the knock-on effects on surrounding businesses in the same development or high street when these anchors are weakened or lost?

The higher rates are being introduced alongside rising employment costs, NICs, national minimum wages, especially for the young, increased alcohol duties, high energy costs and the proposed tourist levy on hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. UK Hospitality has warned that should mayoral authorities choose to exercise these new powers, the additional cost to consumers could amount to £518 million. Layering new fiscal burdens, even where individually justified, can in aggregate undermine the very sector that the Government wish to support.

At what point do the Government consider the cumulative impact of these measures, taken together, and reflect on whether the overall burden risks becoming counterproductive? Of course, I understand the challenges the Government face, but it is this cumulative effect that is such an acute problem. What consideration has been given to the impact on consumer prices and demand, especially at a time when households remain under significant financial pressure?

We would take a different approach. We would provide permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with rateable values of up to £110,000, supporting around 250,000 small businesses across the country. That support would be funded through a more disciplined and focused approach to welfare spending, as set out clearly at our party conference last year.

In these circumstances, I was pleased to hear from the Minister during his Statement on 29 January that the Government were looking at the adverse effect of the changes on hotels and that the wider review of business rates was ongoing. We heard that any changes to business rates would be considered at the Budget in the usual way. Can the Minister confirm that we are talking about the 2026 Budget and comment on the budgetary position? Is there new money for pubs and music venues—and, if need be, for hotels—or does everything have to come out of the £4.3 billion announced in the previous Budget?

Can the Minister please confirm that the wider review of business rates, which currently has an ongoing call for evidence due to close in a few days’ time, as he mentioned, will address not only large infrastructure businesses and premises such as airports, but small and medium-sized businesses in the context of the current economic and tax environment? Will he take a good look at incentives and anomalies in the VOA rules and at the need to align Treasury and local government thinking, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fuller? Will he look in particular at the problem facing recording and artist studios, raised so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has led with his Motion, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Watson of Wyre Forest—and UK Music? Discussions with DCMS could, it seems, also be helpful to the VOA.

Noble Lords will know that we believe in backing those who take risks, create employment and invest in the productive economy. In our view, these regulations move in the opposite direction. For that reason, I urge the Government to reflect carefully on their approach and on the conclusions that they reach from the review that they are undertaking.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the comments and questions raised throughout the debate. Let me start with the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the comments made on that. The Motion he has laid relates to the Non-Domestic Rating (Definition of Qualifying Retail, Hospitality or Leisure Hereditament) Regulations 2025. These regulations set out the eligibility for the new multipliers, and they passed into law last year. As I said at the outset, the Government’s objective in this statutory instrument was to reflect the same definition for eligibility as the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief. We want sectors that benefited under the previous relief to continue benefiting under the new relief. We have therefore retained the same approach to ensure continuity and fairness in our support for the sector while making this support permanent and uncapped.

I have heard clearly in the course of this debate the strong views expressed and the passion for the sector. There were comments from the noble Lords, Lord Clement- Jones, Lord Freyberg and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, who I was sorry to see is not sitting on this side of the Committee. I hope there is nothing for the Whips to worry about in that.

Noble Lords asked in the course of the debate many questions around recording studios. As I have said already, our objective in setting these regulations was to reflect the same definition for eligibility as the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief. I suspect noble Lords will not like my answer here, but that existing relief is centred around retail, hospitality and leisure properties which are

“reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public”.

If a recording studio forms part of a single property with a qualifying hospitality or retail business, and the hospitality or retail aspect is the main purpose of the property, it will qualify for the lower multipliers. It is only if a property is wholly or mainly used as a recording studio that it will not qualify for the lower multipliers, as these are generally not open to the public.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business Rates

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

To conclude, this Government have already started the work of reforming our business rates system, and any potential changes to business rates will be considered at the Budget in the usual way. Labour Members have the right economic plan for Britain and will back our high streets and our pubs every step of the way”.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, here we are again, discussing yet another U-turn when the Government conclude, after public outrage at an announcement that they have made and after some tardy reflection, that perhaps they did not get matters right first time. What is offered here is not merely tardy but inadequate. It fails to grapple with the pressures now bearing down on small businesses across the country, especially from business rates.

It is essential that we look beyond the Treasury’s abstractions and confront the real-world consequences of the changes announced in the Budget, which remain even after this U-turn. Tina McKenzie of the Federation of Small Businesses has warned, following this latest announcement, that it simply proves that

“the Government repeatedly fails to recognise the difficulty that these businesses are in”.

I could not echo that more strongly. Andrew Goodacre, the chief executive of the British Independent Retailers Association, went further, describing the change as a “half-baked U-turn” and warning that independent retail is being “flushed down the U-bend”. He added, tellingly, that he could not recall a worse policy decision, cautioning that this poor decision was based on poor reasoning that will inevitably lead to more shop closures—and so on.

The Minister has said that he wishes to work with businesses but, in the face of this negative and consistent feedback from businesses themselves, especially from SMEs, it seems he has been unsuccessful in that aim. It is abundantly clear that the Statement addresses only a small fraction of the economic damage inflicted on businesses since the Government took office.

The inadequacy is not merely one of scale. The relief announced is, by the Government’s own design, temporary, so it is a sticking plaster applied to a deep and structural wound. One of the most persistent economic misunderstandings that this Government have displayed since assuming office is a failure to grasp what businesses actually need: clarity, consistency and certainty. Businesses do not want U-turns, short-lived reliefs, or promises trailed in briefings only to be withdrawn or reannounced days later, as we all saw before the Budget. This announcement exemplifies that failure in its entirety.

Worse still, everyone in the sector is saying that it is inadequate. If the Minister will not listen to His Majesty’s Opposition, perhaps he might listen to Labour Back- Benchers. Jim McMahon and Stella Creasy made the point that I am making in the other place just this week. When Parliament, publicans, business leaders and his own Back-Benchers are urging a reconsideration, what more is the Minister waiting for?

This is ultimately a question of credibility. Businesses do not measure that by press releases or promises of future strategies; they measure it by whether they can plan, invest and survive. What has been announced does not provide that certainty. It is limited in scope and temporary by design, and arrived only after external pressure became unsustainable. That is not how stable tax policy is made or how confidence is restored.

The truth is that confidence in hospitality and retail is fragile. We heard only this morning from Charlie Nunn, CEO of Lloyds Bank, that the sectors in question were having a challenging time. What assessment has the Treasury made of the number of such businesses that have already cancelled investment, reduced staffing or decided to close since the Budget because the Government have failed to provide clarity about their intentions?

If the Government truly wish to work with businesses, they must move beyond reactive concessions and bring forward a coherent, durable approach that treats the whole high street fairly and gives enterprises the certainty they need in order to grow. Until that happens, I fear this week’s announcement will be seen not as a solution but as an admission of failure.

The modest action on pubs is, of course, welcome, and a promise has been made to look at hotels, but will the Minister agree to look at rates for the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors before the next Budget? Thousands of shops, cafés, hotels, nightclubs, cinemas and theatres are still facing huge increases. The combination of higher taxes and rates, extra regulation and energy prices for business—four times those in the United States—is crippling these very sectors, and I hope the Minister will be able to promise some relief.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I start with perhaps a modicum of welcome because the combined impact of the Budget and the business rates revaluation prior to this announcement, frankly, left the pub industry on the verge of a crisis, with up to 50% of pubs under the threat of closure. Some relief has now been offered for many pubs, and I am glad that this lifeline has been extended to live music venues, which are the birthing ground of our very important music industry.

Do the Government recognise that the relief that they have just announced amounts roughly to only £1,650 per pub, which will still leave many in a critical financial hole? Do they recognise that pubs with a rateable value of over £100,000 are, in effect, not eligible, and that restaurants, cafés and soft-play areas—so many of those hospitality and leisure operations that lie at the heart of our high streets and communities—will get no relief from these changes whatsoever?

The chaos that has surrounded the announcement of the review—the change and uncertainty that has gone with it and the impact on the sector—surely points to the fact that we need to stop trying to fix the business rates system at the fringes. We need to take a proper step back and review the whole way in which business rates are structured, which, I would say, should head in the direction of land value. There is so much to be done around this area. It is time that the Government see that, rather than get into continuous messes by attempting to ameliorate a system that, frankly, is broken.

Do the Government also accept that the chaotic process that we have seen deeply underscores the need to include hospitality in the industrial strategy? At the very least, one would hope that the effect of that would be to force the Treasury to align tax policy with the economic goal of strengthening our high streets and our hospitality and leisure sectors, and to determine that they are a source of growth, not of constant crisis and constraint. Does the Minister accept that, until the Treasury gets aligned with that agenda, we will have constant issues like that? Frankly, that is not the best way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I cannot answer for the strategy of the party opposite—I am sure we would all like to know—but what matters most is that we get to the right policy and I believe that we have done so in this case.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Official Opposition have actually come forward with plans for the high street, which we would be very glad to share with the Minister as he does his high street review. I think we should have not only Lib Dem ideas but Conservative ideas. We have a new Opposition now. We are looking forward, not backwards. We are very keen to see the country grow and the high streets flourish.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness would like to look forwards and not backwards, but I am not sure the country shares that view. The country remembers the past 14 years and the damage that party opposite did to the economy, the public services and the fabric of our nation. As I said already, the noble Baroness cannot wriggle out of the fact that, had her party won the election, it would have ended this relief overnight entirely in 2025. It was in her plans—the plans that we inherited from her. If she now claims that she would have extended the relief, why did her party not say so and include it in their forecasts or projections? We have to take what her party says now with a huge pinch of salt. As I have said, the party opposite always supports the spending that we are doing but does not support a single one of the measures we are taking to raise the revenue for that spending. I suspect that its plans are equally uncosted.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

I look forward to supplementary questions from the shadow Chancellor, the right honourable Member for Central Devon, Sir Mel Stride, and other Members, and I look forward to seeing whether the shadow Chancellor can keep a straight face, given that he knows his Government never did enough for our high streets: 7,000 pubs closed over the 14 years the Conservatives were in power; shops were shuttered on high streets up and down the country; the council services that keep our high streets clean and vibrant were cut to the bone; investment was down; and the public suffered from the longest squeeze on living standards on record. That is the legacy for our communities—one that we are turning around”.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we have more bad news this morning from the ONS on job numbers in hospitality. That makes it even more important that we receive clear answers to the following questions. Why did the Government not get the new rating arrangements right first time in the Budget, when we now know that they already had the relevant information on pubs from the Valuation Office Agency? Following briefing to the FT last week, not only pubs but also restaurants and hotels do not know where they stand from 1 April. This is agony for them. When will the Government make a clear statement of their intentions?

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

As the noble Baroness knows, and as I have said before, the previous revaluation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic, which meant that rateable values were much lower. That means that some businesses, including retail, hospitality and leisure venues, are now seeing an increase as a result of this valuation. At the Budget we therefore announced three elements of support at a total cost of £4.3 billion. We implemented transitional relief; we have capped the increase for any business whose value has increased so that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief; and we have expanded the supporting small businesses scheme.

But, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says—and as I have acknowledged in your Lordships’ House before—the revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them. That is why we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs. Noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both said on this in recent days. I will not add to that now or comment on speculation. When there are further comments to be made, I am sure I will be back here to discuss them with noble Lords.

Public Sector Productivity

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s capacity to increase productivity, particularly in the public sector.

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

My Lords, in the decade from 2010, the UK economy saw the lowest productivity growth since the Napoleonic Wars. This led to the lowest growth in living standards ever recorded. This Government inherited a situation where public sector productivity was 5.6% below pre-pandemic levels. Reversing that performance is the number one mission of this Government. As part of our growth strategy, we have set out measures to increase productivity, including reforms to planning and skills, record levels of investment in R&D, new investment in transport connectivity, and a modern industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, here is another statistic: the ONS has reported that total public service productivity in the UK fell by 0.7% in Q2 of 2025 compared with the previous year and that healthcare productivity fell by 1.5% over the same period. Public service productivity continues to lag behind that of the private sector, yet this Government have overseen a surge in the number of civil servants, with many still working from home; inflationary public sector pay deals, without specific and direct productivity links of the kind that are common in business; more state-controlled activity; and more regulation and taxes on business. Does the Minister agree that this is actually eroding the prospect of UK per capita growth, which is essential for the success of the Government’s ambitions?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not agree with that. On a point of fact, the noble Baroness mentions NHS productivity. The latest figures from the NHS show that NHS productivity has grown by 2.4% in April to July 2025 compared to the same period last year. Once again, the noble Baroness criticises the fact that we are seeking to pay the public sector workforce properly. She will be aware that a workforce that is efficient and well rewarded is essential to increasing productivity—she always talks about the need for increased productivity, but she never backs the measures that actually go to deliver it. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise some of the measures that this Government are taking. At the spending review, the Government established a programme of public service reform to drive greater productivity. As part of that, the Office for Value for Money worked closely with departments to identify £14 billion of efficiencies. The noble Baroness did not mention that in her question. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced that we will deliver a further £2.8 billion of efficiencies and savings in 2028-2029.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

The Government have announced these changes after listening carefully to feedback from the farming community and family businesses, and I am pleased that the National Farmers’ Union and others have welcomed the changes. Even after the reforms, the Government expect to raise around £300 million in 2029-30 from our changes to these tax reliefs. We are making fair and responsible choices to support the farming community, with a record £11.8 billion investment in sustainable farming and food production over this Parliament, and to modernise our tax system for the future”.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government quietly announced over Christmas that the agricultural and business property reliefs threshold would increase from £1 million to £2.5 million. That change is welcome but it is plainly a U-turn, following well over a year of pressure from farmers, other family businesses and the Conservative Benches. First, does the Minister accept that this cruel delay caused unnecessary anxiety and real distress for the farming community and those operating family businesses across the country? Secondly, given that the harm was clear and the opposition sustained, why did the Government wait so long to act, which maximised the damage as families took important and irreversible decisions?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. May I first take this opportunity to wish her a belated happy birthday for the weekend just past?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support for the measures that we announced shortly before Christmas. It is absolutely right that, following the reforms to the reliefs that we announced in the Budget in 2024, the Government consulted about the reforms with the farming community, as she says, and with family businesses. We have now carefully considered this feedback and have acted, and that was the right thing to do. We have acted to protect more family farms and family-owned businesses, while maintaining a core principle that more valuable agricultural and business assets should make a greater contribution.

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, more and more information is emerging about the unfortunate decisions that individuals took during those weeks of pre-Budget speculation. Inspired by leaks from No. 10 and No. 11, stocks were sold, money was taken out of pensions, jobs were destroyed in hospitality and elsewhere, and hard workers and entrepreneurs left the UK to avoid rumoured exit taxes. There is a case for either an open pre-Budget process or a traditional purdah arrangement. There is absolutely no case for setting the rules in one way and acting in another. Will the Minister take that message home to his ministerial colleagues?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and the points that she made. I should say very clearly that we take the Budget process extremely seriously and put the utmost weight on Budget secrecy. She will know that a leak inquiry is now under way, with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team. She will also know that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury will conduct a review of the Treasury’s security processes to inform future fiscal events. We will, of course, also work closely with the OBR to ensure that robust security arrangements are in place before the spring forecast and for all future forecasts. On the other points that the noble Baroness raises, she will be aware that the FCA has now written to the Treasury Select Committee confirming that it has not commenced an enforcement investigation.

Autumn Budget 2025

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and look forward to his maiden speech and working constructively with him in the months and years ahead.

We have all had a few days to consider last week’s Budget, and the conclusion that the vast majority of commentators have reached is, unfortunately for our country, decidedly negative. The one welcome and significant aspect is the slight increase in fiscal headroom from its low level last year, but this has been clouded over by the flow of misinformation in the run-up to the Budget. The negative aspects are numerous. I turn first to the most disappointing area.

When Labour took power, they constantly assured us that growth was their number one priority. Less than 18 months later, growth as an objective has virtually disappeared. There are few pro-growth measures in the Budget but many that will hinder growth, and there were scant mentions of the subject in the Chancellor’s speech. It seemed that growth had served its political purpose and could be cast aside. The Prime Minister tried to correct this on Monday in an unusual post-Budget speech, but he did not dispel fears that growth would become less of a priority. Since then, the OECD has warned that growth will be sluggish and that UK inflation will remain the highest of the G7 countries this year.

The Minister has said today, in an attempt to talk more about growth, that there is clearly much more to do on growth, and I agree. For growth, we need business and consumer confidence, both private and public investment, a tax system with the right incentives and supply side reforms to lift the burden of regulation. The Prime Minister is promising the latter, but the Government’s actions do not match the rhetoric.

I turn next to the extraordinary pre-Budget shenanigans, which lasted many weeks. Before the Budget was delivered, vast swathes of it, indeed pretty much all of it, were trailed, briefed out, withdrawn and then re-briefed by the Government themselves. What purpose all this activity was meant to serve is mysterious. What is clear is that the whole process, counter to all norms and indeed the rules, was contrary to the national interest. As one illustration, Andy Haldane, the former chief economist of the Bank of England, was explicit in saying:

“One of the reasons we had a very weak growth number … is … Budget speculation”.


That speculation was initiated and carried out by the Government themselves.

On process, the OBR’s view of the Government’s breaking of budgetary conventions is set out clearly for us all to see on page one of its report, in the beautifully understated yet lethal prose of the UK mandarinate led by Richard Hughes. We all suspect that he was eased out as much because he authored it as because of the admittedly serious leak of the OBR document on Budget Day, but I shall quote it so we can all enjoy the performance. Describing the production of its forecast, the OBR says:

“Given the unusual volume of speculation on the subject prior to the publication of this--


report—

“the Chair has taken the unusual step of writing to the Chair of the Commons Treasury Committee to set out the facts concerning the evolution of our forecast over the course of the past four months”.

“Unusual” indeed—it is a devastating indictment of Treasury Ministers’ behaviour over the Budget period by those in the best position to judge the facts. Anyone who thinks this is insignificant should just look at the turmoil on the bond markets between 4 November and the day of the Budget—a gift for hedge funds and investment banks, with small investors and more conservative funds left out. Indeed, savers were frightened into withdrawing record amounts from the stock market over the last few months.

The Chancellor and the Prime Minister fought the last general election with a promise of minimal tax rises. The Labour Party has now increased taxes by £40 billion and £26 billion in successive Budgets, taking the total projected burden to 38% of GDP by 2030, an all-time high. It promised that any tax increases would spare working people. So how has that fared? Badly is the answer, if we consider the freeze in income tax thresholds, or the new tax on dividends and landlords, or last year’s huge employer national insurance increase, which in time reduced pay. The hikes in IHT on family businesses, farms and pension savings, which affect many working people, are still to bite. The Chancellor has delivered a Budget not for working people, not for the country, but for the good of her party and her political career.

Last week, the Chancellor refused to rule out future tax rises. The OBR has said that this uncertainty is harming and will continue to harm our economy. It says on page 6 of the report:

“We expect quarterly growth to pick up only gradually in the near term as … domestic business and consumer confidence remains subdued, including in anticipation of further tax rises”.


But why this fear of tax rises? It is because, just over a year ago, the Chancellor told business leaders at the CBI conference that:

“We’ve put our public finances back on a firm footing. Public services now need to live within their means because I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”.


She is in the happy position of providing numerous powerful quotes—for the Opposition.

The Chancellor is shoring up problems for later. Many of the tax rises, notably the increases in thresholds, only kick in between 2028 and 2031. The fall in borrowing depends on this tax tail. Is it realistic to think that this will actually happen in an election year? I think not.

It would be remiss of me not to mention SMEs. What was in it for them? There was a small positive on apprenticeships, but meagre and previously announced reforms to EMI schemes, VCTs and listing reliefs, massive new pressures on payroll from the threshold freezes, minimum wage hikes and salary sacrifice cap, a tourist tax, which will dampen demand, and a hideous mix-up over business rates which will lead to the closure of pubs and hotels.

More than 5 million people are now receiving out-of-work benefits with no work-related requirements. Since October 2024, the number of people in payrolled employment has fallen by 180,000. Yet instead of tackling this, the Government have chosen measures that make it worse. The Chancellor has raised the costs of employing people, raised personal taxes and weakened incentives to work. It is no surprise that the OBR now forecasts that unemployment in 2026 will be 240,000 higher than it expected in March. The decision to scrap the two-child limit compounds this failure. Evidence from the Centre for Social Justice shows that removing the cap interacts with the expansion of health and disability benefits to create benefit entitlements that, for many households, exceed typical earnings by a wide margin. In taxing people and businesses to make it more lucrative to stay at home and not contribute at all, the Government have not only produced an unfair Budget but produced one for benefits street, as the leader of the Opposition has shown us with such energy and verve.

What about our national debt, which is now approaching 100% of GDP? Dealing with this is vital, as in 2025-26 the OBR expects debt interest—yes, interest—to total over £110 billion. Of course, the underlying debt has been accrued over many years. Unfortunately, we do not have a strong plan to reduce it. This is not helped by the fact that we now pay more interest on debt than any OECD country bar Iceland and at a rate higher than that paid during the premiership of Liz Truss, whom the Government are quick to criticise.

The Government have pledged to raise defence spending to 3.5% by 2035, yet the executive director of the Henry Jackson Society has said that the Budget

“talks up defence investment, but the numbers … don’t match the rhetoric … the OBR shows a £32 billion black hole under its 3.5 per cent defence pledge”.

If we want to understand the real effects of this Budget on our economy, we need look no further than the OBR. Its verdict is crystal-clear: the Government’s choices have not improved the economic outlook but made it worse. The OBR has downgraded the UK’s rate of growth in productivity to 1% per annum and, because of decisions taken in the Budget, it states that this package will have

“no significant impact on output”

now, and not even by 2030. Inflation will be higher for longer; unemployment is forecast to rise; increases in household disposable income will collapse from 3% to 0.25% per annum; mortgage costs will rise; the real rate of return on investment by business has been downgraded; the forecast for business investment has been cut once again; public sector net debt rises in most years of the forecast; and a sharp fall in additions to housing stock is expected. Compared to March, the picture is even bleaker: potential output is down, productivity is down, real GDP is down, corporate profits are down and inflation is up.

The Chancellor asked the country for trust; the OBR has told us why she does not deserve it. She promised a plan for growth; the forecasts show stagnation, contraction and diminishing prospects for working people. She promised to protect households; the evidence shows higher taxes, lower incomes and rising mortgage costs. She promised to support business; the OBR shows investment down, profits down and confidence falling. She promised to repair the public finances, yet debt rises in almost every year of the forecast.

The Minister again claimed that our economic problems are all the fault of the last Government. I simply say that it is time he accepted responsibility for his and his colleagues’ failures. After all the noise, all the speculation, all the briefs and counterbriefs, we are left with this unavoidable truth: this Budget does not meet the moment. Our country deserves better than that.