National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in the first group but will restrict my comments to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. This concerns the £2,000 cap in Clause 1, which unfortunately hits a crucial cohort of workers: those going through the gears, where their earnings are moving up from around £25,000 per annum to £50,000. There is a disproportionate impact on the younger end of the workforce—those getting promotions and taking on added responsibilities —whom we as a nation need to encourage to increase their pension contributions, given our rapidly ageing population. This cohort’s life expectancy may be nearer 90, if current trends continue.

There is also a disproportionate impact on our SMEs, which I will address in more detail later. Given the high preponderance of basic rate taxpayers in their workforces, the Bill will, as it stands, make growth, recruitment and retention of staff that much harder, at a time when they are still absorbing the £25 billion hike in employers’ national insurance contributions.

My final point at this stage is on bonus payments, specifically bonus sacrifice arrangements, which are a particular target of the Bill. This really is not smart economic policy, given our need for a performance-driven workforce, where bonuses on merit play a critical role in improving productivity, especially in the private sector. Frankly, they should also feature more, not less, in the public sector.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, clearly there remains a tension within government between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. As we heard at Second Reading, the DWP is focused on encouraging people to save more for their retirement, yet the Treasury continues to pursue measures to fill its coffers, while increasing the burden on both employees and employers yet again.

The Minister spoke of protecting ordinary workers yet, in many cases, the Bill does the opposite. It penalises individuals who are trying to act responsibly, and prepare for a secure and dignified retirement, by removing the very tool—national insurance relief—that was put in place to assist saving for a pension. With the average salary, as we have heard, being around £37,500, anyone on that income who sacrifices more than £2,000 into their pension will face an additional national insurance charge of 8% above that £2,000. That will be a penalty and the reality for all basic taxpayers.

It is difficult to imagine that the DWP can view this outcome with enthusiasm. Once again, the Treasury appears to be prioritising short-term revenue over long-term stability, leaving future Governments to address the financial consequences created today. It is precisely these workers—those on modest incomes who are doing the right thing by saving—who need the most support in building their pensions, rather than being pushed towards greater reliance on the state in the future.

For that reason, I strongly support, and I believe the DWP would agree—I have not spoken to the department —Amendments 1 and 14 in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Briefly, I also support my noble friends in their Amendments 2 and 15, having heard the arguments this afternoon concerning the definition of higher earners. It is simplicity to me that transparency is essential, as opposed to opacity, which can lead only to confusion. Therefore, I believe that this issue should be tied down.

Finally, I would also like to offer my support to Amendments 3 and 16 in the names of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Many graduates, including my two sons, already shoulder a significant and in many cases unnecessary burden in repaying their student loans at interest rates that feel wholly disproportionate. It is not until they are paid about £66,000 that they start to pay down the interest. There are few graduates—probably even fewer in the current hiring climate—who reach this sort of pay quickly. I suspect it takes at least five years —that is the case for one of my sons on the fast track in the Civil Service—and much longer for the majority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which I have signed, and to Amendments 7, 11, 20 and 23, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, to which I have also added my name. I am broadly supportive of all the amendments in group 3, including the very practical suggestions that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord de Clifford.

I will start with the very reasonable proposal in Amendment 6 to uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the CPI. I will not get involved in CPI versus RPI, which has just been very well covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Without one of these mechanisms, we are allowing inflation and fiscal drag, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, pointed out, to diminish the real contribution value of what will be for many significantly reduced salary sacrifice. These amendments address that and I believe they are hardly controversial.

Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is more material in terms of the numbers, changing the contribution limit from £2,000 to £5,000, but, again, it has my support. My overarching concern about this £2,000 cap is that it will compound the existential problem of inadequate pension provision in this country. I encourage the Minister, if he has not already done so, to read carefully the latest report from the Economic Affairs Committee, Preparing for an Ageing Society. On that committee, I sit with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, although we are both about to be rotated off, and one of us possibly removed entirely from this place—but that is a separate issue.

During the inquiry, expert witnesses warned us that, despite the success of automatic enrolment, we are in a situation where we have created an awful lot of small pension pots that are hard to find, hard to keep track of and, crucially, do not add up to enough, including those pension plans deemed to be in the upper quartile. UK people currently outlive their pension savings by about eight and a half years and, of course, the gap is even greater for women. As life expectancy increases, this problem will only grow worse.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group either increase the level of pension contributions exempt from national insurance or seek to prevent fiscal drag. Both aims are very welcome. In many respects, the higher the exempt amount, the better; on the face of it, Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is the most attractive in that regard. Although it does not provide protection against fiscal drag, she did explain why. That said, assuming inflation remains under control, it would take many years for average contributions to reach the equivalent of £10,000, one hopes, just as it would take a fair amount of time—half, obviously—to reach the £5,000 level proposed in Amendment 7 by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others. Both would, however, offer meaningful support to average earners who receive a windfall. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley addressed the issue of bonuses earlier. Those earners may wish to act prudently by making a significant one-off pension contribution, without being caught by this punitive tax charge.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, offers a simple and workable approach, which he explained, yet this modest uplift would not be free of any fiscal drag, as we already know the basic tax rate on which the salary sacrifice threshold will be based. However, the amount would move if the tax bands increased—if only. I fear that, in the long term, this would work against the very employees the noble Lord seeks to protect, but it is better than the £2,000 mentioned in the Bill.

Finally, I turn to the amendments designed to counter fiscal drag, a mechanism that, as we all know, is one of the least transparent ways in which Governments of all colours raise revenue. Who does it fall upon most heavily? Once again, it is the middle and lower earners of this country: the teachers, nurses, engineers and shop owners—the list goes on—the people on whom the nation depends. Yet the Bill risks penalising them for doing exactly what we encourage: saving responsibly for a decent pension in retirement. The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham anchor the thresholds to the consumer prices index, while those in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, use the retail prices index, and we have just heard why.

However, taken together, this group of amendments is of real importance and I support them all, to a greater or lesser extent. We have to try to move this absurdly low number. Each of them, in different ways, seeks to protect the middle and low earners who are trying to do the right thing and save for their futures.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support a number of the amendments within this group. Obviously, the one that catches my eye the most is the one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which proposes the highest increase to £10,000. But I am very reluctant that we put into legislation more figures that become fixed and then become fiscal drag in future.

I write a regular column in the Money section of the Daily Telegraph—I am not sure it is declarable for this particularly, but it is on issues of tax. I wrote an article just a couple of weeks ago on inheritance tax. The threshold has been fixed at £325,000 since 2009, and I say with no great enthusiasm that we had 14 years of government, from 2010 to 2024, where we did not increase that. The Government with the blue flavour have not been good at increasing and uprating thresholds in line with inflation.

As has been said quite widely, it becomes the quiet hand that just increases more money to the Treasury in a fairly underhand way, you could say, because the Government have done nothing new: they have simply sat with the legislation that they have and, lo and behold, the magic of inflation cuts in and more money is raised from the same tax. If the 2009 threshold of £325,000 for IHT had been uprated to today, it would now represent £569,000, reflecting that in parts of the country, a house at £325,000 in 2009, which was intentionally free of inheritance tax, is not free of inheritance tax today. With this legislation, we are potentially implementing a fixed £2,000, which, with fiscal drag and inflated or inflating wages over time, will drag more and more people into the net.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said in glowing terms during the course of this debate how good pensions are. I have no doubt that everyone in the Room thinks that pensions are a good thing. Unfortunately, it seems that that good thing is being whittled away. It does not take much for people to change their behaviour. I am concerned that the £2,000 threshold will mean those on the edge will only ever make a £2,000 salary sacrifice. They will not, under any circumstances, particularly if they are a basic rate taxpayer, ever go to £2,001—with an additional pound —or beyond. They will simply have smaller pension pots, as was very adequately described by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, in his good contribution.

There is the magic of compounding—I believe that Einstein even called it the eighth wonder of the world. It is the magic by which, just with plain inflation, £1 is put away in a very dull, FTSE-based equity plan—or even, should one wish, into government gilts over a very long period—and it goes up. By receiving just 4% or 5% of interest per year, those small pounds from years ago become very big pounds by the time one comes to retirement. As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, very ably said, people have small pots. Even with the great success of auto-enrolment, those pots still remain pretty small; they are not quite enough to supplement a long retirement as people live longer.

I support the good things that the Minister said about pensions. There always seems to be a bit of a cover from a Government who say “Well, only 26% of people will be caught”—I think the Minister said 74% of basic rate taxpayers will not be caught—as if that 74% is more than half and so we need not worry. I am afraid that I do worry about the 26% who will be caught and may do different things—namely, they will not put money away for their savings. For administrative ease, I think the higher the better, so that we do not implement into our tax and national insurance legislation yet another fiscal drag that gets worse and worse over time.

The plea repeated by many in Committee today is to pause and wait, because this will not come in until 2029. Our wide-ranging debate has highlighted a lot of flaws and problems. One of the big flaws seems to be that the Minister who has drafted this legislation remains a little unclear, dare I say it, whether this applies per person or per employment. That seems to go somewhat to the heart of what we are debating. I would almost suggest that we draw stumps and come back another day when the Minister is clear on that, after having asked somebody—I suppose someone in HM Treasury—what is intended. Is it £2,000 per person or per employment?

On the basis of that ambiguity, however, I recommend that we have an uprating to £10,000 at the highest level. Given all the uprating measures that noble Lords have described today—whether an inflationary index is applied or a flat £5,000 becomes the new base level, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposed—I am afraid that the £2,000 threshold is looking very threadbare. It drags far too many basic rate taxpayers—the normal end of taxpayers—into its potential net. The danger is that they will not save and will not grow their own pots into the future. People on low pension income in the future will become reliant on the state.

What we are doing here is trying to get a bit of sugar today into the Treasury coffers. A sugar rush, where the future will have to be paid for as more people fall into pension credit and other forms of retirement benefit payments, could so easily be avoided by introducing every measure we possibly can, here and now, to get people saving for their own future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 12 and 26, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, to which I have added my name. I am also supportive of Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to which I should have added my name; I apologise for not doing so.

I spoke in the previous group about pension inadequacy. This is especially true for employees in our start-ups, scale-ups and SMEs in general. So the exemptions proposed in Amendment 12 get my full support. I should declare my interests as a chairman, investor and adviser to a range of start-ups and scale-ups.

There is an element of Groundhog Day here: some noble Lords will remember that I tabled a similar exemption on behalf of SMEs in last year’s NICs Bill. With the invaluable support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, we achieved a majority of about 100 on Report. At that point, we issued some fairly blunt warnings in relation to jobs; I am afraid that those warnings have been borne out by the employment figures, especially at entry level and in part-time roles among SMEs. These same employers, who are struggling both to create new jobs—look at the vacancy numbers—and to sustain existing ones, face yet more complications and costs in the area of national insurance contributions. Increased burdens at a time when we desperately need to generate per capita economic growth are not well timed.

Some noble Lords will have read the recent letter a couple of weeks ago from the FSB—the Federation of Small Businesses—to the Chancellor of Exchequer. It made for particularly grim reading. More than a third—I emphasise that—of employers among SMEs plan either to shut down their companies or to reduce output due to higher employment costs, increased business rates and increased energy costs. If we want to protect our vital SME ecosystem, we need to stop punishing them—I say “punishing” because it is appropriate, as these are punitive measures—and complicating their business of employment.

In the light of what I have just said, there is a clear need for a review of the impact of the Bill on SMEs, as is outlined in Amendment 26, which also gets my full support.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others—in fact, quite frankly, most of the noble Lords currently in Committee.

These amendments speak directly to the reality facing SMEs and charities, which are organisations that form the backbone of our economy and social fabric. These employers have already endured a succession of rising costs—I have a few to add, so I will go through them again—such as higher national insurance, changes to inheritance tax, increases in the minimum wage, new obligations under the Employment Rights Act, business rate adjustments and the continuing shock of energy prices. A handful of sectors have received modest relief but, for most, these pressures fall straight to the bottom line. The cumulative effect is profound.

Charities are no better placed. They are all under extraordinary strain, yet they provide services that the state itself cannot easily replace. How do these organisations continue to operate if further costs are piled on them? My noble friend mentioned the outrageously appalling numbers.

There is even more concern when donors are typically being more hesitant, due to the overall sentiment in the country to donate. This is not merely short-sighted; it risks creating far greater financial and social pressures for future Governments. The Bill adds yet another cost: it raises employment expenses at a time when many organisations are already stretched to breaking point. It undermines their ability to offer competitive pension packages, often one of the few tools available to attract and retain skilled staff. There is a high chance that these businesses will simply withdraw salary sacrifice schemes and may simply withdraw themselves from the market.

Implementation is scheduled for 2029, which gives these operations time to review the situation, which is, as we have heard, very complex. Many SMEs do not have HR teams to manage new thresholds, payroll changes or contract revisions. They will be forced to pay for external support that they can scarcely afford in the current climate. This is not a policy that encourages growth; it is one that diverts time, money and energy away from the very activities that drive economic vitality. This is on the basis of companies that employ on an annual basis, but what happens if they take on shift and seasonal workers who may have more than one occupation, which we have already heard quite a lot about? The complexity merely increases ever more, as does the expense, if the company is prepared to continue with salary sacrifice schemes at all.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I have had the privilege of putting my name to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has added her name to it as well.

I own an SME business, and this Government’s changes to NIC have significantly affected it. Of the 8% rise in salary costs to my business in the past 12 months, 25% of that figure—or 2%—was the NIC change. The changes proposed would increase that further.

This amendment seeks a review of the effect of the change on SME businesses and on employment rates within SMEs. SMEs are the bedrock of employment in this country, as was covered by my noble friend Lord Londsborough. The addition of this pre-profit tax does nothing to encourage growth, investment or employment. This review is very much welcome to identify any changes within SME businesses, to ensure that we remain healthy and can create opportunities for growth and jobs for all generations, especially the young.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first address Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. I agree on the importance of transparency on the impact of this policy, including on employers. However, an additional publication is not necessary to achieve that objective. A number of documents have already been published in line with the usual practice for national insurance contribution changes, which comprehensively set out the impacts of this measure, including on employers.

The tax information and impact note was published alongside the introduction of the Bill. This sets out the number of employers expected to be impacted by this measure, the one-off costs—including familiarisation with the change, the training of staff and updating of software—and the expected continuing costs, including performing more calculations, and recording and providing additional information to HMRC, where salary sacrifice schemes continue to be used. This equates to a one-off £75 and an ongoing £99 per business per year. The Government also published a policy costing note, which includes detail on the costing of the measures, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of the behavioural responses expected by individuals and employers.

The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the Government’s policy costing. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note, which provided additional information that it received in last year’s Budget to further increase the transparency of this measure. Taken together, these publications already provide an appropriate and comprehensive assessment of employer impacts.

On Amendment 32, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and its supplementary forecast—

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He has mentioned up to five different publications where this information may be found. Is it not possible for the Government to bring it into one place, so that we can actually see what the information is?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have already said, it has been published in various places, and I do not see the need to bring that into one place, as the noble Lord asked.

On Amendment 32, the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and its supplementary forecast publications set out how behavioural responses have been considered in certifying the costing. Some of these behavioural assumptions were also published in the policy costing note accompanying the Budget. The supplementary forecast information was drawn from analysis and data supplied to the OBR by the Government ahead of Budget 2025, in line with the standard process by which the OBR scrutinises and certifies costings. The Government’s published costings therefore already reflect these behavioural effects, and the OBR has certified these costings in the usual way. Given that the material reference is already publicly available and has been fully reflected in the certified policy costings, it is not necessary to review the OBR’s supplementary forecast.

If the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, will forgive me, I will write to him with the answer to his specific question. In the meantime, given the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to express deep concern about the Government’s decision to impose a £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice arrangements for pension contributions. This measure may appear technical, but its consequences for retirement saving are anything but trivial. It raises serious questions about the coherence of the Government’s approach to pension adequacy at a time when the nation can ill afford missteps.

Salary sacrifice has long been a legitimate and widely used mechanism, enabling employees to exchange part of their salary for pension contributions, benefiting from both tax and national insurance relief, as we have heard. It is not a loophole. It is not an avoidance scheme. It is a deliberate feature of the system that encourages people to save more for their retirement. By imposing this cap, the Government are restricting one of the few tools that has demonstrably helped individuals to boost their pension savings in a tax-efficient manner.

This decision comes at a time when the UK is confronting a substantial and widening retirement savings gap and when an independent commission is actively considering how best to strengthen pension adequacy. The evidence is stark. The Department for Work and Pensions acknowledged in 2025 that around 14.6 million working-age people are undersaving for retirement. The Scottish Widows Retirement Report 2025 shows that only 30% of the population is currently on track for a “comfortable retirement”, while 39% are at clear risk of falling short. Mercer—I declare my interest as an employee of their sister company Marsh—has repeatedly highlighted, most recently in 2024, the need for higher contributions if we are to close the savings gap.

Against this backdrop, it is difficult to understand how the Government can justify a policy that will, in effect, discourage additional voluntary saving. The commission’s message has been unambiguous: we must help people to save more for their later life, not place fresh obstacles in their path.

The scale of the impact is not marginal. According to the Government’s own explanatory notes, 3.3 million savers—around 44% of employees using salary sacrifice—stand to be affected. Many of these would not be considered high earners exploiting generous tax reliefs. Furthermore, there are lower and median earners who make occasional larger contributions when they can, often after life events or periods of financial stability. This cap will hit them the hardest. It risks undermining the ability of savers to build a secure retirement income at precisely the moment when demographic pressures, an ageing population and rising life expectancy make adequate saving more essential than ever.

There is a fundamental question of fairness. The pension adequacy commission is tasked with ensuring that all workers can aspire to a decent retirement income. Yet this cap risks creating a two-tier system: those who wish to save more are restricted, while those already struggling to save enough continue to face structural barriers. Rather than reducing inequalities in retirement outcomes, this measure threatens to entrench them.

The implications extend beyond individuals. Some 290,000 employers currently use salary sacrifice arrangements, benefiting from reduced employer national insurance contributions. If the cap reduces participation, employers will face higher national insurance liabilities, increasing the cost of employment. The OBR suggests that many employers will shift to ordinary pension contributions, including relief at source schemes.

Under these arrangements, employees will pay full income tax up front and reclaim it later, effectively giving the Exchequer an interest-free loan. In 2029-30, this manoeuvre raises £4.85 billion, before falling to £2.29 billion the following year when individuals reclaim the tax on the previous year. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government are playing cash-flow games with workers’ retirement savings while imposing yet another cost on employers. At a time when economic growth is desperately needed, this policy risks becoming yet another drag on the very companies we rely on to invest, innovate and employ. I urge the Government to reconsider.

A pensions system must be judged by its ability to help people build security for later life. Policies that restrict saving, complicate incentives or undermine confidence run counter to that mission. If we are serious about addressing the challenges of an ageing society, then tax and national insurance policy must align with and not work against the goal of pension adequacy. The Government still have time to correct their course. I hope they will do so, in the interests of savers, employers and the long-term financial health of our country.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in lieu in this group, particularly Amendment 21B by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, asking for an ex post review of the impact on various sectors of this jobs tax. It is official government policy, confirmed by the leader in the other place, that Parliament will be given the information it needs to scrutinise legislation properly, but, shamefully, the Treasury refused point blank to give the information that we requested in order to scrutinise this Bill properly. My noble friend’s amendment is modest and reasonable, and if the Government do not accept it then that will show a complete lack of respect for Parliament and the process of parliamentary scrutiny.

I want to underline a point made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe about hospices. At the earlier stages of the Bill, the Minister kept repeating that the Government were putting £100 million into hospices and £26 million into children’s hospices. It is clear that neither of these amounts represents additional money available to absorb the cost pressures produced by the national insurance changes. My noble friend explained that, and I hope the Government will not try to pretend that the funding situation for hospices is anything other than completely dire at the moment.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to personalise this a little, because the hospice movement is unbelievably important in this country, and I am grateful to other noble Lords for raising the point again. I suppose that my family has been very fortunate, in unfortunate circumstances, to have the benefit of two hospices, both at end of life. Both hospices face significant shortfalls in their annual running costs and live off the back of occasional big legacies. They already have to raise substantial amounts of money, and the national insurance increase puts yet more pressure on the system. We have had the increase in minimum wages, which means that they have suffered those costs in addition; doctors and nurses do not come cheap, as we know. This just drives costs up further—for the hospice closest to home, the figure is nearly £0.5 million.

So what does the national insurance increase mean? In this particular case, it means either the loss of three nurses, who conduct some nearly 4,000 visits a year in the community, preventing the need for hospital care, or losing one bed, which would be dedicated to the most complex needs for patients at the end of their life.

If hospices are forced to reduce their care to the community, what happens next? They play such a critical role in supporting the NHS, which is not subject to the increase, both in terms of community care and in easing pressure on acute beds in hospitals, as well as facilitating discharges from hospital. If the Government continue to impose financial strain on the hospice sector, more hospices will be forced to scale back services or even close. That is something we cannot live with in this country, and it would place yet greater strain on the NHS—a particularly difficult sector, as we know, and one that we are trying not to pressure any further. When salary increases for medical staff and the rises in national insurance are factored in, this particular hospice will have to raise yet another £200,000 on top of the £0.5 million that I mentioned earlier, and that hospice is but one of 200 fantastic operations in this country.

I make again the point that various noble Lords have made: the recent announcement of the £100 million funding from His Majesty’s Government for the hospice movement and the £26 million for the children’s hospices is for capital projects, which, while very welcome, does not help this particular situation—a situation that the Prime Minister singularly seemed to ignore at PMQs last week. I beg the Government to reconsider their position.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of these amendments and to speak very briefly about hospices—which I know many noble Lords have already done. Our hospices support over 300,000 people, mostly in the community, and this tax will cost the sector hundreds of thousands of pounds. Beds will close and outreach services will be decimated. Where will people go to die? Yes, hospitals offer palliative care, but only four out of 10 hospitals have the services that are necessary seven days a week, despite this having been a national standard in 2004.

The assisted suicide Bill is being debated in the other place. Assisted dying is what hospices do: ensuring that people can die in dignity, are properly cared for and can live as fully as they are capable of right to the end of their life. We only die once. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has said previously: that not exempting hospices from this tax is shockingly cruel. But it is worse than that, because it shows a lack of compassion and an absence of humanity that are truly shocking. It leaves me speechless, and I have nothing more to say.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, as declared in the register of interests, I work for Marsh Ltd, a subsidiary of MMC Inc, which also owns Mercer, a global consulting firm that offers solutions for investments, retirement, health and benefits. That sounds a bit like an ad but it is important in this case.

The proposed changes to employers’ national insurance contributions represent not just a fiscal adjustment but a direct and tangible tax on the future economic growth of the United Kingdom. Why? First, we must consider the immediate impact on UK businesses, which are already navigating a minefield of challenges. Rising operational costs, muted consumer spending and the lingering effects of recent economic shocks have left many companies struggling to grow. Imposing an additional financial burden in the form of increased national insurance contributions is akin to asking a runner, already fatigued, to carry an additional weight uphill. It is not just ill-timed; it is counterproductive.

In the context of global markets, the implications are even more concerning. The rise in national insurance will make the UK less competitive on the world stage. Again, why? It is because each new recruit will now come with a higher cost to businesses. For multinational corporations deciding where to expand or establish a new branch or headquarters, or for fast-growing start-ups seeking an environment conducive to scaling up, the UK is no longer the obvious choice. Instead, it will be perceived as more expensive, less attractive and a riskier proposition for those with ambitious growth plans. This is not the signal that we should be sending to the world.

Moving on to the hard-working people of this country, the financial burden imposed on businesses does not exist in isolation. Businesses facing these costs have limited options to maintain profitability. They may choose to freeze or reduce pay rises, adjust prices for goods and services, or cut back on benefits and pension contributions. There is an assumption that businesses can just cut fat from their operations, but no, as it is often now not there to cut. In every scenario, it is the workers and consumers who will bear the brunt of this decision.

Already, the data is telling. Around one-fifth of business leaders questioned in spot polls by Mercer have indicated that they intend to reduce their budgets for salary increases as a direct result of these changes. Another 17% are in a holding pattern, unable to make definitive plans for pay adjustments. Perhaps more concerning is the finding that a fifth of businesses are shelving hiring plans altogether. These are not abstract numbers. I would add, as did my noble friend Lady Noakes, that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, by 2026-27, some 76% of the total cost of national insurance contributions will be passed on through a squeeze on workers’ pay rises and increased prices.

This punitive tax, which affects all businesses, is having a disproportionate impact on sectors that employ large numbers of lower-paid workers, such as the retail, care, non-profit and hospitality sectors, to name but a few, since the threshold drop-down affects a more significant proportion of pay. The hospitality industry—one of the cornerstones of our economy and culture—is a prime example. UKHospitality has warned that a third of businesses in the sector are already operating at or below breakeven. The additional burden of the increased national insurance contributions could push many over the edge. It is not just about numbers on a balance sheet; it is about the vibrancy of our communities, the livelihoods of countless workers, and the health of an industry that has already endured so much.

Survey data from the Confederation of British Industry, representing 170,000 businesses, paints an even grimmer picture. Nearly two-thirds of firms anticipate that the hike in national insurance will negatively impact their investment plans, and half have indicated that they may need to reduce headcount as a result. Meanwhile, confidence among members of the Institute of Directors has plummeted to near record lows, echoing the sentiment of businesses at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. The IoD has stated:

“Far from fixing the foundations, the Budget has undermined them, damaging the private sector’s ability to invest in their businesses and their workforces”.


The long-term consequences will be important. From listening to the voices of business, I note that these changes will come with significant opportunity costs. Reduced hiring and investment will not just slow growth but create a cycle of stagnation: less hiring means fewer opportunities for workers, which in turn reduces consumer spending and diminishes economic activity. No business is immune. This is not a path to prosperity but a recipe for regression.

The knock-on effects extend beyond the private sector. A sluggish economy means reduced tax revenues for the Treasury, leaving the Government with fewer resources to invest in vital public services. The irony is glaring: a policy ostensibly designed to generate revenue for public goods—the NHS, social care and so on—could ultimately undermine their funding. At a time when these services are needed more than ever, we cannot afford such a misstep.

We cannot will economic growth into existence through further taxation and burdens on businesses. Growth requires investment, innovation and a competitive environment that attracts talent and capital. The UK must be a place where businesses feel confident to expand, hire and innovate. This requires policies that incentivise growth, not stifle it.

The proposed changes to national insurance contributions represent a tax on workers, on growth and, ultimately, on the Government themselves. This policy must be rethought to prioritise measures that enable businesses to thrive. Competitive tax incentives, streamlined regulations and targeted support for key industries are just some of the ways that can foster an environment conducive to growth.

This is about not just economic metrics or fiscal policy but the kind of country that we want to be. Do we want to be a nation that penalises ambition and stifles potential, or do we want to be a beacon of opportunity, attracting the best and brightest, and empowering our businesses and workers to succeed? The answer, I believe, is clear: growth and opportunity must be chosen, with policies that support, rather than hinder, the aspirations of our people and businesses. The Government need to ensure that the UK remains a competitive, dynamic and prosperous nation. Let us reject the false economy of punitive taxation and embrace a future built on investment, innovation and shared prosperity.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to run the risk of repeating myself, but I have made plain in previous debates my concern about the inclusion of the competitiveness objective in this legislation. Just to be clear, I think it has no place, but I welcome these provisions that there should be a report on the competitiveness objective. My concern is that the wording does not get to the heart of the problem that I believe exists, which is the interaction between the competitiveness objective and the other objectives. My reading of the way this is worded is that the report just has to talk about the competitiveness objective and does not have to say how it affected the other objectives. Maybe the Minister in her reply could allay my concerns and make it clear that the regulatory bodies are required to look across the whole gamut of their obligations when reporting on the competitiveness objective.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as an employee of Marsh Ltd, the insurance broker. I offer my support to the amendments in this group, so thoughtfully proposed by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. My noble friend the Minister has indeed made improvements since Grand Committee, and for that I thank her, but I wonder whether the Government have gone quite far enough. I particularly thank the Minister for the generous amount of time she spent with me the other evening.

My noble friend the Minister’s amendment proposes two reports, 12 months apart, as has been mentioned, but I believe that it is important that reports from the regulators should become an annual occurrence concerning the competitiveness and growth objectives. The financial sector of the United Kingdom is a major driver of revenue for the country and we must ensure consistency over time, not just the immediate future. In turn, this suggests the need for consistent metrics on which to report, allowing for the proper comparisons.

Amendment 19 concerns the principle of proportionality, recognising that not all financial services are the same. Again, I will look at the insurance market in particular, but I suspect there are similarities in other financial lines. I am all for keeping individual retail and small business customers safe when working with insurance companies, but there are significant differences to be found between them, users of the London wholesale insurance market—which is used by knowledgeable buyers, using one of many potential advisers—and captive insurance entities. Smaller customers need a level of protection not required by either of these other two groups.

In the debate on this amendment, I wish to refer particularly to captive insurance companies. Captives are wholly owned subsidiaries set up to provide risk mitigation services—insurance—for their parent company and/or related entities. The parent is inevitably a sophisticated entity, almost certainly hiring advisers. They should require a very different approach from the retail customer.

There currently seems to be a one-size-fits-all approach by the regulators when reviewing insurance companies that does not take into account the nature of the purchaser. This is not only time consuming but costly in comparison with other overseas regimes. Captives provide low risk to the financial system and the buyer of their services requires a significantly different level of regulation from an insurance company trading with individuals. They are fundamentally different.

There is no captive company authorised in the UK and even those of our major companies, including UK public bodies, are located in overseas jurisdictions. The captive insurance business generates in excess of $50 billion annually, and here lies a significant opportunity for growth in the insurance sector which, should the regulator alter its stance and act with proportionality, could, as an example, add significant additional capital into the country.

Amendments 40 and 41 refer to the requirements to publish regulatory performance on authorised firms and new authorisations. The Government certainly recognise in Clause 37 the need to improve the regulatory culture, but we need more teeth in terms of reporting metrics so it becomes standard practice within the regulators. This culture needs to become ingrained.

The metrics being proposed in Amendment 40 are granular concerning timing and would bring some needed haste to the system. In business, time is often of the essence and being held up disproportionately by a UK regulator, as opposed those in other jurisdictions, acts as a deterrent to trade in this country. The metrics being proposed in Amendment 41 link together to give a consistent window into the activities of the regulators. With quarterly reporting it will be possible to gain some comparative statistics that will tell a story.

Lastly, Amendment 92 concerns determination of application. London remains one of the world centres of insurance and we must do all we can to preserve its status, but there are for sure a number of other locations that can attract capital more easily and so challenge it. Unfortunately, regulatory burden is regularly raised as an issue damaging London’s ability to attract additional capital and support the market.

Concerns have been raised about the overall performance of the regulators in terms of timing, with authorisations and approvals taking longer they should. It is recognised that they are falling behind their KPIs. Insurance companies here have experienced delays in case handler assignment, which is the beginning of a domino effect. In addition, concerns have been expressed over some of the questions asked and the appropriateness of the data being requested, leading to additional time and expense. The regulators need to streamline their activities by being relevant.

These amendments refer to a great extent to measures designed to bring some more accountability to the reporting by the regulators. I realise there is a consultation with the financial markets, but I believe that the measures being proposed are the bare minimum that should be required and included in the Bill. These sets of metrics will prevent the regulators deciding which of their own sets of data to publish. Certainly, from an insurance perspective, this will allow life to proceed way more freely. This will ensure transparency from the regulators, which is surely what is being strived for.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group fall essentially into two categories. Those that improve communication and representation to statutory panels are small but positive improvements and, although I remain of the view that these panels should be given proper independence, I am glad to see that at least there is some improvement in the regime.

The other amendments I view very differently, and I will pick up the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Davies of Brixton, that if the reporting requirements included a proper consideration of how the competitiveness and growth objectives as they became operational were also impacting on financial stability, systemic risk and consumer protection, I would find myself very much in favour of them. But actually I regard them as a sort of slightly disguised mechanism to enhance the status of the secondary objectives to something which I think the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, described on Monday as “secondary plus”, or even “secondary plus plus”. I think that is exactly what these various amendments are intended to do.

This House knows well that I join Sir Paul Tucker, Sir John Vickers, pretty much every former Governor of the Bank of England and many others in regretting the introduction of these objectives because, for exactly the reason that others have said, they will incentivise and drive risky behaviour and we will come to rue that. So this further enhancement of these secondary objectives, very much driven by the industry—we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, how strong the feeling was that we try and get towards making these objectives either primary or close to primary—should be a warning to all of us. So I cannot give these amendments my support, although we are obviously not going to vote on them today. However, it is necessary that the House takes note of some degree of warning.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th February 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, before I start, I declare my interest an employee of Marsh Ltd, the insurance broker.

I again find myself supporting my noble friend Lord Holmes. These amendments would ensure that the cost-benefit analysis panels are better equipped to undertake the necessary scrutiny of the regulators’ work by ensuring their independence from the regulators. As the Bill stands, all the powers are given to the regulators in controlling the membership, agendas and outputs of these panels, thus allowing the regulators to set and mark their own homework, as people have said.

These amendments would ensure that the CBA panels have the necessary independence from the regulators by giving them powers to set their own agendas and work programmes. Where appropriate, the work of the panels should be made public. The amendments would ensure that the panels have the powers and authority to gain access to the data and impact assessments on which the regulators propose to make their decisions, including a cumulative cost-benefit analysis to understand the cumulative impact of regulation. The panels would have powers to have two existing representatives—or a number that noble Lords so suggest—in order for the views of the prevailing market to be heard. Importantly, the CBA panels would be given the freedom to offer a view on the overall economic impact and effect on UK competitiveness of regulatory changes, including scrutiny over the regulators’ reporting on the competitiveness objective. Finally, the panels should have the ability to undertake pre-regulatory scrutiny of rules, with the ability to challenge the regulators and seek a response to new regulations coming into force.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I want to commend the Government on actually bringing in the concept of cost-benefit analysis panels. Generally speaking, the amendments in this group elaborate on that and probably make them better balanced. I will certainly be interested to hear the Government’s reaction to them.

We have Amendments 131 and 140 here, which would require the FCA and the PRA respectively to put on their CBA panels

“at least three individuals with experience and expertise in the field of economic crime, with one drawn from the public, private and third sectors”

and to consider

“any economic crime risks posed”

by any new rules they propose. These amendments have come from thinking at the other end and from the organisation Spotlight on Corruption. I thank it for contributing its expertise, and Emma Hardy MP for pursuing the amendments in the Commons.

These amendments are part of our overarching push to highlight the Government’s weaknesses on economic crime, mainly fraud. There are serious concerns from consumers and stakeholders across the board about the slowness of regulators in preventing and tackling the vast amount of economic crime in the system. The size of the prize is vast. Money laundering is estimated to cost the UK £100 billion a year and fraud costs us £137 billion a year. The regulators need to do much more. I hope the Minister will agree that having panel members with specific expertise in economic crime is one way to ensure this, given the perverse ingenuity of the criminals they are up against.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention. I declare my interests as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander in Madrid. I have a lot of sympathy with some of the amendments in this group, especially those in the name of my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

I will take a quick step back. The Bill needs to be improved in three key ways. First, we need to improve the reporting by the regulators. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, we need to make sure that the regulators are not marking their own homework, which is why it is important that we create a form of independent analysis. Thirdly, we need to improve parliamentary accountability. The amendments clearly address the first point on reporting. I will not repeat the number of points made very eloquently by the noble Earl and others, especially my noble friend Lady Noakes. However, I strongly believe that, as has been said, this will help regulators define their actions and, in so doing, help address confidence in the regulators that they are meeting those objectives.

I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—I was about to call her my noble friend; she is a good friend—and she is absolutely right. We absolutely have to get right the balance between competitiveness and stability here. I do not think anyone here is arguing for a race to the bottom; that would be a disaster for our financial services sector. A strong financial services sector is based on robust, proportionate and simple regulation, so I completely heed that concern. However, I look at some of the amendments, especially some of the metrics being quoted here, and the data that they would provide would be exceptionally valuable to us as Parliament when we come to assess the performance of our regulators in a critical sector for our economy, and we can then judge them on those actions. I look at the consultation that the PRA set out, which states that it will include its performance in meeting this new objective but it does not say how. It is important that we send a signal, and at least have a very thorough debate as to what that might be.

I end on this point: does the Minister seriously think that the current reports we get from our regulators are satisfactory and adequate, especially in the light of the new powers and the new objective that the Bill confers on them and the concern that I think many on both sides of the Committee have about what that means for their powers and their accountability? That is a simple question.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh & Co, the insurance broker. I too support Amendments 66, 115 and 196 in the names of my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Naseby, Lord Trenchard and Lady Noakes. Since Second Reading the Bermuda authority has reported that it saw the highest number of new insurance-broking companies registered in more than a decade as 84 new companies were set up in 2022, but not one has been set up in the UK for 15 years. This is the reality of international competition that the UK is facing as it competes with jurisdictions around the world for investment, capital and jobs, but we note that we depend on high standards of regulation. It seems that a number of key changes are needed to address this to improve the accountability of UK regulators, making them more consistent in their approach and more responsive in ultimately ensuring that they act more proportionately, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

Amendment 66 requires that the FCA and the PRA each publish an annual report setting out how they have facilitated international competitiveness and growth against a range of data and analysis requirements. Clause 26 currently allows regulators to decide for themselves how they believe they have met the requirements of their new competitiveness, as already mentioned. For example, the clause states that the FCA can decide “in its opinion” how to report on the objective and therefore decide solely for itself how it has met the objective’s requirements. The objective must therefore have alongside it a clear reporting criterion so that the Government and Parliament can properly hold the regulators to account. It is unclear whether the regulators will consider metrics specific to international competitiveness, not simply domestic competition. The criteria set out in the amendment can be measured and targets created to ensure that the regulators are operating effectively.

The Bermuda Monetary Authority takes a different approach and has different classes of insurers and reinsurers, together with authorisation criteria and KPIs that match the level of risk that the entity poses to the system. This allows it to undertake an authorisation of an international reinsurer with clients that are solely other insurance companies in less than one week—can you imagine?—thereby freeing resources to focus on entities serving individual retail customers.

Clause 37 gives Ministers a power over the regulators’ reporting requirements by providing them with a mechanism through which to direct information to be published. The danger is that this clause becomes more of a backstop measure, rather than something embedded in our new regulatory framework. While the clause is welcome in demonstrating the Government’s recognition of issues around needing to improve regulatory culture, it asks more questions than it necessarily answers. It is unclear how the Government will decide the criteria for requesting a report and whether they will seek input from industry and Parliament or the new bodies that the Bill creates, such as the cost-benefit analysis panels, in understanding where there is a demand for information. It is unclear whether, as part of its report, the regulator will undertake comparative analysis of its performance against the UK’s competitor jurisdictions as well as analysis of product and service innovations taking place in key markets. This is how Parliament will best understand whether the UK is performing well globally.

What we need are mechanisms in the Bill that help ensure that accountability becomes part of the day-to-day operation of the regulators, not something used ad hoc. That is the only way that we will get culture change and deliver the kind of culture change that we in Parliament and industry want, as addressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral at Second Reading. That is why measures set out in these amendments are so important. I hope we can look at further changes along these lines.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to speak to you today for the first time, concerning the Financial Services and Markets Bill being introduced by the Minister, my noble friend Lady Penn. Before continuing I must declare my interest as an employee of Marsh Limited, the insurance broker.

I would like to take a moment to thank the many who have shown me huge kindness on my arrival in the House feeling like the new schoolboy all over again. I thank the doorkeepers, clerks, special advisers, librarians and Black Rod for their generous advice on so many issues. In particular, I would like to thank my noble friends Lord Glenarthur, Lord Ashton, Lord Borwick and Lady Sanderson, who have encouraged me and given me great help and guidance. Finally, without the help of the Opposition Chief Whip, I think I would still be wandering the passages of this labyrinthine building even now, two months later, yet to be discovered, totally lost. I hope he does not regret it.

The Cubitt dynasty was founded by Thomas Cubitt, who was the first to establish the building contracting business as we know it today. In the process, he became one of the great developers of early 19th century London, including in the development of the Grosvenor estate from Belgravia to the Thames. Two of his best-known buildings are the east front of Buckingham Palace and Osborne on the Isle of Wight. It was not he who was awarded the Ashcombe peerage but his son, my great-great-grandfather, in 1892. George Cubitt served in the House of Commons for over 30 years followed by 25 years in this House. His son Henry followed in his footsteps but was very unfortunate in that he lost his first three sons in the Great War. They are remembered on the Royal Gallery memorial. In 1920, the family building company built the Lutyens-designed Cenotaph in Whitehall.

I inherited not from my father but from his first cousin. I was brought up in the Republic of Ireland and took a civil engineering degree here, then entered the world of insurance where I have spent 35 years working in the energy sector. It is the insurance aspect that brings me here today. Many of us have experience dealing with personal insurance but there is a great deal more to the subject than that. Insurance is one of the country’s greatest economic strengths and a source of vital capital to an increasingly fractious global risk landscape.

Indeed, without the abilities of the London insurance market, grain and other vital foodstuffs trapped in Ukraine would not have been exported last year to those countries desperately in need of food; as the sanctions start to bite there have been many restrictions put in place, but the market has responded by continuing to provide insurance on a humanitarian basis. Also, development and investment in new technologies would be significantly reduced. An example of the London market innovation is the provision of insurance for the surge in green and blue hydrogen prototypical initiatives to reduce carbon footprints and combat climate change.

Insurance has often been portrayed as the poor relation of the City of London. However, this financial sector today employs almost 50,000 people. We have the highest concentration of insurance-related intellectual capital, experience, insurers, brokers and affiliated professional services. This is what makes London a world-leading global insurance market. Using 2020 data, the London market share of the worldwide premium is in excess of $120 billion, although the market share of 7.6% has been static over the last five years. It is larger than its next three competitor markets—Bermuda, Singapore and Zurich—combined but is continually being challenged. The sector generated 24% of the City’s GDP and just under 1.8% of the United Kingdom’s GDP.

One of the secondary objectives of this Bill is for the regulators to promote the growth and competitiveness of the UK economy. An area where the London market has no participation is captive insurance companies. This would certainly be an opportunity for growth as it is a $54 billion industry. Even UK companies such as Network Rail and Transport for London have their captives in foreign jurisdictions. These captive insurance companies are designed to provide insurance to their parent company or its entity. It is no longer the tax legislation, an oft-cited reason for this being the case, but the regulatory hurdles, as the regulators treat them as commercial insurance companies.

Regulators will always remain an important part of the checks and balances of financial business, but they need to be proportionate in recognising that personal consumers need a greater level of protection than the more sophisticated companies, which have significant experience and take professional advice on how to manage their risk protection. It should not be one size fits all.

Secondly, the Bill currently allows the regulators to determine how they believe they have met the requirements of the competitiveness objective. This suggests that they can mark their own homework. Would it not be preferable to have a set of key performance indicators laid down in the Bill, by which they can be measured when reporting back to the Government and Parliament?

With these thoughts in mind, I thank noble Lords for this opportunity and look forward to supporting this Bill, promoting growth and competitiveness for our financial services industry and, ultimately, growing this vital sector of the economy.