National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Altrincham and Baroness Kramer

Report stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be exceedingly brief. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, is, quite frankly, genius. We have all had a struggle trying to get our hands on information that is scattered in so many different places, and I am fairly sure that if this was put with a secret ballot to civil servants they would all sign up because they struggle as well. It makes it very difficult when new policy comes through to try to work out what on earth the consequentials are, what numbers to look at, how to weigh these issues and how to understand distribution of impact, so I support his amendment.

This is such a complex Bill. When the instructions went down to put the Bill in place, I am sure there was absolutely no sense of the complexity that was going to be entangled in it. Amendment 38 in my name was triggered particularly by the OBR publication, again in response to an FoI, Costing of charging NICs on salary-sacrificed pension contributions, which was a supplemental analysis. The word “uncertainty” appeared in so many parts of it that we began to have a sense that no one could have huge confidence in the final numbers that were appearing, and it was very honest of the OBR to make it clear that there were vast uncertainties underpinning large parts of this work.



Very much like the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I still do not think that we have bottomed out the problem with optional remuneration arrangements. It is easy to assume that we can distinguish between a negotiation where we are choosing between cash and a pension and having a negotiation that involves cash and a pension. But can we claim that the two are not related to each other, so that we do not get trapped by OpRa? There is a lot in here, and a review is the least we should do to make sure that we have a grip on these things and that Parliament gets to see it when it is still in a position to make some decisions.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in hosting the debate. The amendments in this group all underscore another substantial shortcoming in how the Bill has been approached: its effects and impacts have not been properly assessed in advance. I suspect that the Minister does not have the information on how the Bill will affect pensions saving adequacy, which I highlight in my Amendment 37, and how it will affect employer costs, pensions adequacy and workers’ take-home pay, which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raises in her amendment.

These are serious questions. As was noted in Committee, if the Treasury had done better work in preparation for the Bill, it would already be able to give us the answers to the questions that these amendments raise. These are the questions that businesses, employers, savers and industry are asking. As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, the information must be in an easily accessible format in a single place, because it will be relevant to more than just policymakers and parliamentarians: businesses and employers will be trying to understand what all this means for them, as well as employees saving for their pensions, who will be trying to understand how they could be affected.

My amendment raises the question of pensions adequacy. People are not saving enough for their pensions and the Government are worsening incentives to do so with the Bill. The Minister should consent to a review of this matter before the Bill comes into force. The Government must make sure that they know the facts, so that we can ensure that they do not inflict unintended harms. As a point of good governance, the Minister should accept this and the other amendments in this group.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Altrincham and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will try to be speedy. The amendments in this group in various ways would require that the work to assess the impact of the Bill on pension savings and pension incomes is done and put before Parliament. My Amendment 28 would make this a responsibility of the Government. Amendments 29 and 30 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Neville-Rolfe, would require an independent review. These three amendments have different degrees of detail and emphasis, but I suspect they can easily be redrafted to cover all the key elements.

It seems to me that behind all these amendments sits a basic question: did the Government do their homework? If they had, they could pretty much hand us everything we have requested tomorrow morning. I fear that this has been another off-the-hoof policy where the Government poorly understand the consequences, and I think that needs to be exposed and dealt with. It is true that implementation of the policy is not until 2029, probably the other side of another general election, but, frankly, that is not an excuse for doing this wrong, for not having the evidence and for not making it available. That is what I think every amendment in this group seeks to achieve in a different way. I beg to move.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 30 has a simple purpose: to ensure that before the Act is commenced there is an independent review of its impact on pensions adequacy—which we have been talking about again and again through this Committee—saving behaviour and on those repaying student loans, and that Parliament must see the findings before the provisions take effect.

Pensions adequacy is one of the central long-term economic challenges facing this country, and under the Government it is set to get far worse. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ report Adequacy of Future Retirement Incomes: New Evidence for Private Sector Employees could not be clearer. On current trends, around four in 10 private sector employees saving into defined contribution schemes are projected to undershoot the Pension Commission’s replacement rate targets. Even using a far more modest minimum living standard benchmark, a substantial minority are not on track to reach it.

The IFS also makes a crucial point that, since the Pensions Commission report 20 years ago, lower returns on saving and longer life expectancy mean that the savings rates required to hit adequacy benchmarks are higher than previously thought. In other words, the adequacy challenge has intensified, not diminished. Yet what are the Government doing in the Bill? They are altering one of the key mechanisms through which many working people build their retirement savings without any independent assessment of what that will mean for adequacy.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Altrincham and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I think that the amendments we discussed on Monday would have covered the public authorities issue but I am not absolutely sure, so clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful. Can he also clarify for us the protections put in place for micro-businesses? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is usually right when she identifies these issues. It is beginning to sound as though the sector is somehow not qualifying for that level of protection. It would be most helpful to understand that.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her amendments in this group; for her extremely well-made case as to how we might look to soften the blow for public services and the private sector; and for drawing attention to so many areas on the edge of public services that will be affected, such as dentists and childcare jobs. This is where the impact will be widely felt across the country.

On Amendments 54 and 55, the Government have stated that the purpose of this Bill is to repair the public finances. A key aspect of this plan is to ensure that public authorities can continue to operate efficiently without being overly burdened by rising employment costs. By increasing the employment allowance for public authorities to £20,000, we would reduce the financial pressure on them to provide essential services. Increasing the employment allowance specifically helps offset rising staffing costs, which are expected only to grow as the Government invest more in public services.

As the Government focus on boosting public sector capacity to meet future challenges in depopulation, the higher allowance would support that goal. It would provide greater flexibility to focus on improving service quality and enhancing delivery without worrying about escalating employment costs. The proposal aligns with the Government’s goal of unlocking economic growth. The ability to support and maintain a strong and capable public sector workforce means that these services can continue to contribute positively to the wider economy. This tax increase will inevitably drive policy-driven unemployment, which we have talked about, as already evidenced in the recent jobs numbers.

I understand that the Minister believes that the Government had no flexibility when they produced their Budget and made these tax choices. However, as the months have passed, the economic situation has changed and there has been quite a bit of wage inflation. As such, these proposals to increase the employment allowance could be cost-neutral to the amount of money raised, and should certainly not be immediately dismissed as unfunded policy decisions.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Altrincham and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, because these Benches spoke extensively on charities in an earlier grouping, where the amendment would have overturned the change that the Government are introducing. I particularly want to pick up the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because, like others, I am very conscious that, of the charities that I have talked to, a fundamental part of their problem is that they cannot turn around and respond quickly enough to a measure that is being introduced so quickly. I am not up on all the rules of the Charity Commission, but I suspect that it would frown greatly on a charity spending when there is no clear funding mechanism coming in to replenish its resources. I think that there is a requirement to have several months’ contingency on the books, so there is a real problem here for many charities in having to turn around very quickly.

One of the amendments deals with increases in the employment allowance. That runs into a problem that the Government could help us with. It is my understanding that an entity that sells 50% of its services to the public sector does not qualify for employment allowance, so there will be many charities that are excluded from any benefit that is offered under that amendment. I wonder if the Minister could help us to get a better grip on that, because I think we have all struggled with understanding the application of those rules.

My last point did not occur to me until I started reading the input from various charities. A number of charities that have been able to survive and are fairly confident about their funding will now find themselves in a position where they need to battle and compete for grants. Some of the very smallest charities are concerned that they may get excluded from the grant offering because charities with a bigger reach are now turning to those particular pots. I am not sure whether the Government considered that as they put together this picture.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

This is an interesting set of amendments, given that, in essence, through this policy the Government are looking to take £1 billion out of the charity sector to fund public services, when the charity sector obviously provides public services—so it is a uniquely baffling government initiative. We on these Benches absolutely support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on Amendment 11A and by my noble friend Lady Sater on Amendment 32.

I speak to Amendment 52, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment would increase the employment allowance for charities from £10,500 to £20,000 to assist with the burden being placed upon charities. It is a probing amendment, and I would like to understand the cost that this would have for the Treasury and the plans the Government have to support the sector with the increased costs and the rise.

The remarkable comments made by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and its estimate that this will cost the sector £1.4 billion every year, has been referenced in this debate by my noble friend Lord Leigh and others. It would leave charities in a position where they are unable to absorb the costs and will, as a result, be forced to reduce the number of services they provide. In essence, as we talked about on day 1 in Committee, these services are public services. Charities in this country have become quasi-public service providers in the last 20 years, and it is most unlikely that, in pulling back services, those services would not have to be provided by the Government elsewhere. It is therefore most unlikely that the Government will not wear the costs of this change. It is naive to assume that charities provide some other service that is not a public service or a substitute for a public service.

The Government will be well aware of the severe issues that charities are facing, following the open letter from the NCVO to express concern that three out of four charities will have to withdraw from public service delivery or are considering doing so. This is an extraordinary way to treat a sector that would provide a public service. In fact, the Government have accepted the principle that the delivery of public services should not face this tax, following the exemption of both the Civil Service and the NHS. What justification does the Minister therefore have for the exemption of some providers of public services but not charities? Charities provide close to £17 billion in public services every single year, and the services they provide are invaluable to communities across the country, so a failure to protect them would be devastating.

I support my noble friend Lady Sater’s Amendment 32 and recognise the importance of the Government fully assessing the impact that this tax increase will have on the sector. The Government owe it to charities to fully consider the impact that this will have across the sector and, as such, I hope the Government will consider both Amendments 32 and 52 very carefully as we progress.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Altrincham and Baroness Kramer

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the more times I read this statutory instrument—even after writing myself a cheat sheet on its alphabet soup of acronyms—the more I realise that I lack the expertise in the digital financial services and crypto space to really understand what is happening, the context and the implications. However, I have always supported the sandbox approach as a creative way for the regulator to understand innovations in financial services and how to appropriately regulate them.

This is a high-level SI that will, as the Minister said, be followed by detailed—although negative—SIs to address specific cases. I am a bit concerned that we will need to spot these cases in order to question them, but I have no intention of opposing the regulations before us today. PISCES is a slightly different issue but, frankly, without seeing the new prospectus regime, I have absolutely no idea how to comment on the changes contained in this SI.

I do, as always, have a few questions. First, I want to understand how this SI and what lies behind it ties in with the competition and growth objective. Are the Government taking the view that future growth in financial services is largely linked to digital business models, including blockchain infrastructure and crypto assets, and that shaping the FCA to be a benign regulator will make the UK a leading player in designing, holding, trading and marketing new instruments? Or are the Government concerned that digital and crypto create a new potential for market manipulation, mis-selling and money laundering, such that the FCA needs to find ways to counter, with different approaches to monitoring supervision enforcement? In other words, are the Government playing offence or defence? I would like to hear the Minister’s view.

Secondly, and related to that, with this instrument and the related activities, are we ahead of the curve, with the curve or behind the curve compared with other international regulators? I am afraid I do not have the global reach to understand, and it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us.

My lack of knowledge in this area led me to contact a friend in the industry to seek advice, and I was stunned by the response. In summary, I was told that the innovators who bring new and innovative models to the regulator’s sandbox are the smartest people in the room, but the regulator views the sandbox as a means to decide on monitoring procedures, compliance algorithms and approaches to enforcement. The innovators, by contrast, use the sandbox to identify the regulator’s points of weakness and then build them into their models to escape regulatory control. Innovators in the sandbox explore the regulatory perimeter, for example, to design products that will fall just outside; the mini-bonds are an example. They identify transaction sizes that will slip under the radar and coding approaches that will prevent multiple transactions that are essentially identical to be linked together and therefore escape both supervision and action. Those are just examples, but, increasingly, the industry seems to regard observing the intent of the regulator as purely voluntary. Does the Minister have any concerns that the regulator is outmanoeuvred, underpowered and underresourced?

I will end on my hobby-horse, which applies very much in these circumstances. Does the Minister recognise that, in this very fast-changing world, when so much is global and so much is digital, an effective whistleblowing system is absolutely vital, and our current system is a serious weakness?

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to address the Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024. These regulations serve to bring various legislation under the remit of the financial market infrastructure—FMI—sandbox. The sandbox regime is an important part of the Financial Services and Markets Act, giving expression both to good prudential regulation and economic growth by supporting innovation.

As we heard, the regulations being transferred to the FMI sandbox are: the STRs, or stock transfer gilt-edged securities regulations 1985—the digital gilt area that is likely to be an enormous focus of the government team in the coming months; the GSRs, or Government Stock Regulations 2004; the MLRs, or Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017; and the UK prospectus regulation, Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Since our departure from the European Union, the British Government have pursued an ambitious programme of reform to establish a regulatory framework that is better tailored to the strengths and opportunities in UK financial services. These regulations further enhance our ability to adapt and thrive in a competitive global financial environment. The instrument is more than a technical adjustment; it is a demonstration of our commitment to dynamic regulation in financial services and support for innovation. The instrument ensures that our laws continue to reflect the highest standards of probity and innovation while giving the financial services sector clarity and confidence.

As Conservatives, we believe in the power of free markets, tempered by fair rules and effective oversight. These regulations are a testament to that philosophy, and they ensure that the UK remains the jurisdiction of choice for global financial institutions and investors, which in turn helps the country secure tax revenues needed to fund public services. By updating and expanding the scope of the Act, we are aligning our regulations with emerging opportunities including advances in financial technology, green finance and digital assets—areas in which Britain has already established itself as a global pioneer.

The FMI sandbox scheme commenced under the previous Conservative Government and was a success, with the digital securities sandbox—the DSS—proving useful to business. Three of the pieces of legislation being brought into scope would facilitate activity in the first FMI sandbox, known as the DSS: the STRs, the GSRs and the MLRs. Bringing the GSRs and the STRs into the scope of the FMI sandbox powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 would facilitate the possibility of sovereign debt issuance, using distributed ledger technology, under the DSS.