Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on working people, particularly those earning below the higher-rate threshold, of removing the National Insurance exemption on salary-sacrificed pension contributions above £2,000; and what modelling they have conducted on the distributional impacts across income deciles.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
A Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN) was published alongside the introduction of the Bill containing the changes to pensions salary sacrifice. The TIIN is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salary-sacrifice-reform-for-pension-contributions-effective-from-6-april-2029
As set out in the TIIN, of the estimated 7.7 million employees who currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. This means 44% would be impacted by this measure, while 56% - around 4.3 million people - are fully protected by the £2,000 threshold. Of those with salary sacrifice contributions in excess of the cap, the average additional employee NICs liability is estimated to be £84 for the tax year 2029/30.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) set out the estimated yield for this measure. Their assumption on passthrough is in line with assumptions for previous changes to employer NICs and is also reflected in the Government’s published costing note.
This change applies to all employers who use salary sacrifice for pensions, regardless of whether they are public sector or private sector. Many public sector employers are prohibited from using salary sacrifice for pensions under the rules of "Managing Public Money."
The government supports all individuals to save into pensions through a generous system of income tax and NICs reliefs worth over £70 billion a year.
This is the fairest way to support pensions saving whilst ensuring relief is targeted at those who need it most.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the OBR’s assumption that, following the decision to apply National Insurance to salary-sacrificed pension contributions above £2,000, employers will pass 76 per cent of the additional cost to employees.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
A Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN) was published alongside the introduction of the Bill containing the changes to pensions salary sacrifice. The TIIN is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salary-sacrifice-reform-for-pension-contributions-effective-from-6-april-2029
As set out in the TIIN, of the estimated 7.7 million employees who currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. This means 44% would be impacted by this measure, while 56% - around 4.3 million people - are fully protected by the £2,000 threshold. Of those with salary sacrifice contributions in excess of the cap, the average additional employee NICs liability is estimated to be £84 for the tax year 2029/30.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) set out the estimated yield for this measure. Their assumption on passthrough is in line with assumptions for previous changes to employer NICs and is also reflected in the Government’s published costing note.
This change applies to all employers who use salary sacrifice for pensions, regardless of whether they are public sector or private sector. Many public sector employers are prohibited from using salary sacrifice for pensions under the rules of "Managing Public Money."
The government supports all individuals to save into pensions through a generous system of income tax and NICs reliefs worth over £70 billion a year.
This is the fairest way to support pensions saving whilst ensuring relief is targeted at those who need it most.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on public and private-sector pension disparities of the policy to apply National Insurance to salary-sacrificed pension contributions above £2,000.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
A Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN) was published alongside the introduction of the Bill containing the changes to pensions salary sacrifice. The TIIN is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salary-sacrifice-reform-for-pension-contributions-effective-from-6-april-2029
As set out in the TIIN, of the estimated 7.7 million employees who currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. This means 44% would be impacted by this measure, while 56% - around 4.3 million people - are fully protected by the £2,000 threshold. Of those with salary sacrifice contributions in excess of the cap, the average additional employee NICs liability is estimated to be £84 for the tax year 2029/30.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) set out the estimated yield for this measure. Their assumption on passthrough is in line with assumptions for previous changes to employer NICs and is also reflected in the Government’s published costing note.
This change applies to all employers who use salary sacrifice for pensions, regardless of whether they are public sector or private sector. Many public sector employers are prohibited from using salary sacrifice for pensions under the rules of "Managing Public Money."
The government supports all individuals to save into pensions through a generous system of income tax and NICs reliefs worth over £70 billion a year.
This is the fairest way to support pensions saving whilst ensuring relief is targeted at those who need it most.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on long-term pension adequacy of removing the NICs exemption on salary-sacrificed pension contributions above £2,000.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
A Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN) was published alongside the introduction of the Bill containing the changes to pensions salary sacrifice. The TIIN is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salary-sacrifice-reform-for-pension-contributions-effective-from-6-april-2029
As set out in the TIIN, of the estimated 7.7 million employees who currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. This means 44% would be impacted by this measure, while 56% - around 4.3 million people - are fully protected by the £2,000 threshold. Of those with salary sacrifice contributions in excess of the cap, the average additional employee NICs liability is estimated to be £84 for the tax year 2029/30.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) set out the estimated yield for this measure. Their assumption on passthrough is in line with assumptions for previous changes to employer NICs and is also reflected in the Government’s published costing note.
This change applies to all employers who use salary sacrifice for pensions, regardless of whether they are public sector or private sector. Many public sector employers are prohibited from using salary sacrifice for pensions under the rules of "Managing Public Money."
The government supports all individuals to save into pensions through a generous system of income tax and NICs reliefs worth over £70 billion a year.
This is the fairest way to support pensions saving whilst ensuring relief is targeted at those who need it most.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether participating employers in the Local Government Pension Scheme are permitted to hold separate notional investment strategies within their administering authority’s pension fund; and, if not, whether administering authorities have any discretion to apply differentiated investment approaches or notional asset allocations for individual employers as part of their Funding Strategy Statements or Investment Strategy Statements.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
It is for administering authorities to set an investment strategy for their fund. Relevant legislation, regulations and guidance does not preclude a fund from setting a different strategy for different employers.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government how has the proportion of AI expenditure within the Department for Work and Pension’s overall IT budget changed since 2018; what assessment they have made of the potential savings and efficiency gains that could be achieved through greater use of AI and modern IT systems; and what steps they are taking to build in-house expertise and identify new opportunities for AI deployment across departmental operations.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) did not allocate direct funding for AI prior to 2023/2024. Direct investment began in 2023/24, representing around 0.4% of the IT budget. In 2024/25, this increased to approximately 2.5% and 2.2% in 2025/26. Whilst the current year (2025/26) shows a reduction in % terms, the £’s investment represents a similar value, demonstrating the Department’s drive to use AI within its digital transformation strategy.
DWP’s Strategy for 2030 sets the direction for how we will transform delivery of our services over the next few years. AI and modern IT systems will play an important role in that strategy.
We collaborate with stakeholders to identify key areas where AI can solve business challenges and add value, co-designing solutions with these stakeholders.
A secure version of Microsoft Copilot Chat is now available to all DWP colleagues. We are providing this capability to enable colleagues to safely explore how AI can contribute to their roles.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 8 August (HL9823), what work NHS England or the Department of Health and Social Care has undertaken with the Professional Records Standards Body on (1) the Core Information Standard, (2) clinical information that is needed for direct care related to person characteristics and definitions for the NHS data model, and (3) the Unified Information Standard for Protected Characteristics.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The National Health Service has many longstanding Information Standards and IT systems which already include patient stated gender and gender identity data items, alongside phenotypic sex classification where required. These include the Personal Demographic Service and data sets such as the Mental Health Minimum Data Set and Commissioning Data Sets.
The Professional Records Standards Body (PRSB) has adopted the existing approved NHS Information Standards, rather than the NHS adopting the PRSB standards. Work is currently underway in response to the Sullivan Report and other clinical safety risks, to better define and separate sex and gender data items within the NHS Information Standards and systems area. The PRSB is engaged on this work and will align with such changes to Information Standards.
NHS England previously commissioned the PRSB to support the development of data standards that enable consistent and safe sharing of clinical and demographic information.
On the Core Information Standard, NHS England worked with the PRSB to define a minimum dataset for the exchange of key information between care settings. This standard was published and is available on the PRSB website, although it is not in itself a formal information standard.
On clinical information needed for direct care related to person characteristics and definitions for the NHS data model, the PRSB was commissioned to conduct discovery work with a wide range of clinicians from all specialties. These included Royal Colleges, patient-representative groups, and third sector bodies, which were engaged on the data items required for clinical care which relate to Sex and Gender Reassignment, as well as other provisions within the Equality Act such as ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion and philosophical belief, age, and disability.
NHS England has not engaged with the PRSB on the Unified Information Standard for Protected Characteristics (UISPC). This relates specifically to recording of data related to Protected Characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, to enable the NHS to monitor compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and address known health inequalities.
Once the UISPC report recommendations are made to the Department, Ministers will review and consider next steps, including how best to consult more widely.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 8 August (HL9823), whether the NHS uses the definitions of the Professional Records Standards Body for gender and gender identity.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The National Health Service has many longstanding Information Standards and IT systems which already include patient stated gender and gender identity data items, alongside phenotypic sex classification where required. These include the Personal Demographic Service and data sets such as the Mental Health Minimum Data Set and Commissioning Data Sets.
The Professional Records Standards Body (PRSB) has adopted the existing approved NHS Information Standards, rather than the NHS adopting the PRSB standards. Work is currently underway in response to the Sullivan Report and other clinical safety risks, to better define and separate sex and gender data items within the NHS Information Standards and systems area. The PRSB is engaged on this work and will align with such changes to Information Standards.
NHS England previously commissioned the PRSB to support the development of data standards that enable consistent and safe sharing of clinical and demographic information.
On the Core Information Standard, NHS England worked with the PRSB to define a minimum dataset for the exchange of key information between care settings. This standard was published and is available on the PRSB website, although it is not in itself a formal information standard.
On clinical information needed for direct care related to person characteristics and definitions for the NHS data model, the PRSB was commissioned to conduct discovery work with a wide range of clinicians from all specialties. These included Royal Colleges, patient-representative groups, and third sector bodies, which were engaged on the data items required for clinical care which relate to Sex and Gender Reassignment, as well as other provisions within the Equality Act such as ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion and philosophical belief, age, and disability.
NHS England has not engaged with the PRSB on the Unified Information Standard for Protected Characteristics (UISPC). This relates specifically to recording of data related to Protected Characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, to enable the NHS to monitor compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and address known health inequalities.
Once the UISPC report recommendations are made to the Department, Ministers will review and consider next steps, including how best to consult more widely.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is their timetable for the publication of the Unified Information Standard for Protected Characteristics, and whether it will be subject to public consultation.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The National Health Service has many longstanding Information Standards and IT systems which already include patient stated gender and gender identity data items, alongside phenotypic sex classification where required. These include the Personal Demographic Service and data sets such as the Mental Health Minimum Data Set and Commissioning Data Sets.
The Professional Records Standards Body (PRSB) has adopted the existing approved NHS Information Standards, rather than the NHS adopting the PRSB standards. Work is currently underway in response to the Sullivan Report and other clinical safety risks, to better define and separate sex and gender data items within the NHS Information Standards and systems area. The PRSB is engaged on this work and will align with such changes to Information Standards.
NHS England previously commissioned the PRSB to support the development of data standards that enable consistent and safe sharing of clinical and demographic information.
On the Core Information Standard, NHS England worked with the PRSB to define a minimum dataset for the exchange of key information between care settings. This standard was published and is available on the PRSB website, although it is not in itself a formal information standard.
On clinical information needed for direct care related to person characteristics and definitions for the NHS data model, the PRSB was commissioned to conduct discovery work with a wide range of clinicians from all specialties. These included Royal Colleges, patient-representative groups, and third sector bodies, which were engaged on the data items required for clinical care which relate to Sex and Gender Reassignment, as well as other provisions within the Equality Act such as ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion and philosophical belief, age, and disability.
NHS England has not engaged with the PRSB on the Unified Information Standard for Protected Characteristics (UISPC). This relates specifically to recording of data related to Protected Characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, to enable the NHS to monitor compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and address known health inequalities.
Once the UISPC report recommendations are made to the Department, Ministers will review and consider next steps, including how best to consult more widely.
Asked by: Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 4 December 2024 (HL1918), what steps they are taking ensure the appropriate use of sex-specific language in the NHS, as set out in the Women's Health Strategy for England, published on 30 August 2022 (CP 736).
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government and the National Health Service know the importance of using accurate and factual language in relation to biological sex as part of health communications. The Department’s longstanding position is that health information should be as clear as possible, and that language should be used that appropriately reflects sex as defined as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010.