National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to open proceedings with my noble friend Lord Altrincham on our first day in Committee and to be joined in this group by my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

This is not a Bill we welcome. Contributors to research done by HMRC published last year were critical of all the hypothetical scenarios put forward by the Government, including the £2,000 cap, which I believe was seen as the most complicated option presented. This proposal will add to administrative burdens on business, as will become clear when we debate later amendments, especially where people have multiple jobs, start or change employment or vary what they do seasonally.

We are also greatly concerned that it will limit incentives to save, punish normal working people for making prudent and sensible decisions, and reduce pension adequacy. Pensions adequacy is one of the central long-term economic challenges facing this country and, under this Government, it is only set to get far worse. Today we are looking at another small nail in the coffin of such adequacy. Of course, the proposal was not in the Labour manifesto, which I think promised not to raise taxes on working people.

The research by HMRC has shown that employers were seriously concerned that

“changing the pension system could inevitably cause confusion and risk people becoming more disengaged with pensions”.

Against this unsatisfactory background, Amendments 1 and 14 make a simple but very important clarification, which is to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the £2,000 cap. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, one-quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, and who will be hit by the changes that this Bill will bring in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap, with possibly greater numbers joining them, as the cap is not indexed. The Minister might dispute those specific numbers, but even he conceded at Second Reading that people earning under £30,000 would be affected by this change.

Not only does this contrast starkly with the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the Explanatory Notes and by the Minister at Second Reading, to affect only higher earners; it also disproportionately affects lower-paid workers. Salary sacrifice, as we know, allows an employee to give up a portion of their pay so that it is paid directly into their pension. That does not just attract income tax relief, as all pension contributions do; it also enables national insurance contributions to be saved on the amount transferred. So it is the contribution that working people pay every month that lies at the heart of this issue. Higher rate taxpayers continue to benefit from relief related to their tax rate of 40%. Basic rate taxpayers benefit less, since their tax rate is only 20%. We are talking, on Treasury estimates, about 850,000 basic rate taxpayers.

For a basic rate taxpayer, the 8% national insurance loss amounts to two-fifths of the value of their income tax relief. In absolute terms, the marginal cost of this policy is four times higher for lower-paid workers than for those on higher incomes. The problem goes further: this is a harsher blow to certain groups of savers than many had anticipated, particularly those repaying student loans. That is why I very much support Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, which would prevent those repaying student loans from being hit by a double whammy. I will leave it to him to explain the detail.

Graduates begin repaying their loans once earnings exceed £28,745, at a rate of 9% if they are on the plan 2 scheme. If the Bill is unamended, graduates using salary sacrifice will no longer see that 9% effectively redirected into their pension via salary sacrifice once they exceed the £2,000 cap. For those individuals, the effective loss is not just 8% in national insurance but 17% at the margin.

This comes at a time when the newspapers are full of furious comment about the high interest rates—inflation plus a huge 3%—payable on plan 2 loans. The announcement over the weekend by Kemi Badenoch to support a cut in the rate of interest charged on some student loans issued in the decade up to 2023 is therefore most welcome and is a clear step toward addressing this problem, which the Government, distressingly, seem content to live with.

The interaction between that major issue of public concern today and this Bill on salary sacrifice comes through clearly in a comment from the director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. She said:

“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay”.


At a time when we are urging people to do the right thing—to save, to plan ahead and to take responsibility for their retirement—the Government are choosing to hit lower-paid workers harder. That is the unavoidable consequence of how this policy operates in practice.

Worse still, it falls most heavily on a younger generation who already face higher housing costs, who paid for their university education and who now find work taxed more heavily under this Government’s jobs tax—last year’s £25 billion NICs changes, which we discussed in this Room and which we rightly warned would devastate youth employment. Because that prediction has proved accurate, especially for young people, the Government would be wise to listen to the concerns aired today and outside and make changes to this Bill. It is ironic in a way that we are considering this at the same time as the Pension Schemes Bill, which is designed to improve pension saving and the incentive to save. We are doing the opposite here: making pension saving harder, less attractive and less fair.

Our amendments provide a simple solution for the Minister. By exempting basic rate taxpayers from coming under the cap, we would ensure that the Government’s stated aim is achieved and that we modify what is in effect a regressive tax. Our amendment offers a simple, targeted means of mitigating the harm that this policy will cause to some of the more financially vulnerable people in our society and I urge the Minister to accept it. If he cannot, he should explain to the Committee why his Government are choosing to disincentivise people from taking responsibility for their own future at precisely the moment when state pensions are under significant strain, which is set to intensify in the years ahead. Lower savings today means lower retirement income tomorrow and greater reliance on the state for future needs.

I turn to my Amendments 2 and 15, which ask the Minister a very simple question. What precisely does the Treasury mean by a “higher earner”? Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government have repeatedly justified this policy on the basis that it is targeted at higher earners. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, described the reforms as “fair and balanced” and said that they,

“protect lower and middle earners”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. 1684.]

Similarly, the Explanatory Notes state plainly that the Bill

“limits the NICs relief available to higher earners”.

Those are the Government’s words, but nowhere in the Bill, in the Explanatory Notes or in the Minister’s speech is the term “higher earner” actually defined.

That is a serious matter, because the practical effect of this policy suggests that it reaches well beyond any intuitive understanding of what a “higher earner” might be. The Minister has already acknowledged that individuals earning £30,000 and below will be affected. Industry experts have warned that those earning between £30,000 and £60,000 are likely to feel the impact most acutely. Median earnings in the UK are around £37,000 and, in London, they are £10,000 greater. Given this, who are these “higher earners” to whom the Treasury refers?

Since the election, we have heard a succession of phrases from the Treasury: working people, ordinary earners, higher earners. The language shifts, but what has remained constant is the refusal to define these terms. When this House considered the national insurance Bill last year, we warned that the burden would ultimately fall on working people. That proved correct; and the same risk arises here that rhetoric about protecting lower and middle earners does not align with the actual distributional impact of the policy, and the Government are allowed to get away with it because they never set the goalposts in the first place. If the Government’s objective is generally to protect those on lower and middle incomes, that objective must be capable of scrutiny. Scrutiny requires definition. Without definition, we cannot assess whether the Government are meeting their own stated aims. That seems a basic requirement of transparency in fiscal policy-making. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall congratulate my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Amendments 1 and 2, then I will speak to my Amendments 3 and 16.

This Bill has a number of disadvantages to the economy and society, as it penalises pension saving and retirement security while, of course, leading to higher costs and a higher administrative burden for employers. It may also lead to some employers reducing pension generosity or even scrapping salary sacrifice schemes altogether, so it may well discourage and disincentivise good behaviour. One has to question whether the limited expected tax yield justifies the cost, particularly as we know that behavioural response will reduce the amount of tax generated, and it simply is not fair for many people, disproportionately affecting certain groups such as savers and lower-income earners.

However, the Government cannot argue that it was in their manifesto, because it was not. In fact, it was the reverse—the manifesto pledged no increases in tax, including national insurance. We can argue that it is important that we have a very good look at certain aspects of this Bill and try to point out its shortcomings, together with making some constructive and, I hope, helpful amendments. After all, it looks like some 44% of employees using salary sacrifice for pensions will be impacted by this measure. It is important that we look at the Bill in detail, as the Society of Pension Professionals—SPP—has warned the Government that planned restrictions to salary sacrifice could reduce retirement saving and increase costs for hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of workers. The SPP has warned that the changes are likely to reduce pension savings at a time when government figures already show that 15 million people are not saving enough for adequate retirement; that rises to 25 million if the state pension triple lock is removed.

The Reward and Employee Benefits Association has warned that this Bill will put strain on businesses and push millions of people into poorer retirement. In a survey it undertook, an overwhelming 99% of businesses said the organisation would be affected by the cap and 70% said this Bill would increase the administrative burden. Furthermore, a third of businesses expect the change will make it difficult for them to attract and retain talent. It has been described as a change from sleepwalking into a retirement crisis into speedwalking into one.

I appreciate that all I have said is somewhat of a preamble, but it needs to be said, and it will be said by me only once, although it applies to all the amendments we will discuss today and possibly on Thursday—although I gather the plan now is to curtail debate today if at all practical. Is the noble Lord waving at me? Does he not know either? Fair enough. I always pay attention to Government Whips waving at me.

I turn to Amendments 3 and 16—parallel amendments because of Northern Ireland—in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They deal with the complications this Bill brings in respect of student loans. I appreciate this is a little technical and complicated and may not be best resolved by debate in this Committee so much as by discussion between all relevant parties before Report. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for setting me up to explain it all. I will do my best but, as I say, this may be a difficult format in which so to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I made my views on this Bill fairly clear at Second Reading, so I am going to try to observe the discipline of not repeating my Second Reading speech. I am sure that I will not be absolutely 100% on that, but I am going to try.

I want to look first at this group of amendments. Amendments 1, 2, 14 and 15 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, are particularly relevant because I do not think that at Second Reading we came away with a clear understanding that basic rate taxpayers were going to be significantly caught by the changes in this Bill. The focus on higher earners— I agree very much that we need “higher earners” to be properly defined—leaves us with a mistaken impression. I hope very much that the Government will provide some degree of clarity—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, called for the evidence—on who is impacted and how they are impacted. We ought to have that information in front of us. I will be troubled if this captures people on basic rate tax, given the pressures that they already face.

I would like to focus much more strongly on Amendments 3 and 16, because I do not think that at any point at Second Reading we addressed the impact on graduates repaying student loans and the impact on their take-home pay. I want to thank a gentleman called Tim Camfield who did some calculations and forwarded them to me because, as I worked through his calculations, it seemed to me that he had to be right. He wrote in the context of reading a response from the OBR to what I understand was an FOI in which it said that it did not believe that the Bill had any impact on student loans. It seems to me that very evidently it does and we need to know that. If the Government do not intend it and are going to have a workaround that will prevent it, then frankly we need to know that as well.

We all know that students have been under extraordinary pressure and that the Government openly have frozen the starting repayment threshold, but this, in effect, if Tim Camfield and others are right, would be a backdoor, further blow to this group. Whenever people say “student loans” and you are a Liberal Democrat, it is important to say—and I do not want to give a speech on our new policy—that my party recognises its role in creating the student loan repayment scheme. But frankly, the scheme is so changed, and graduates are under such pressure, that we now recognise that it is broken. I will not go through our policies—they are extensive—to completely reform that system.

I look now to the Minister to give us some real clarity, both on who is impacted and how extensively—how a normal person might read that as being an ordinary worker on a relatively modest income, rather than just a higher earner—and on the issue of student loans. I have some information on the distributional analysis that I will use in group 3 but, on the principle of trying not to repeat myself constantly, I will wait until then.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, prompted as I am by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay, may I just take a moment to remind the Committee that I am a member by qualification of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and have received very helpful briefings from it?

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

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on this first group of amendments. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed.

This first set of amendments, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seeks to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the Bill. I have listened closely to the points raised and the concerns expressed during this debate. The Government have ensured that the measures in the Bill do not affect the majority of basic rate taxpayers. Around 74% of basic rate taxpayers currently using salary sacrifice will be protected by the £2,000 cap, and almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less will be protected. The small number of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above £2,000 will continue to benefit from employee national insurance relief, worth £160 a year, in addition to the full income tax relief that they receive on their pension contributions. Of the small number basic rate taxpayers who are impacted, half will face an annual additional national insurance contributions liability of less than £50.

While we recognise the intention behind the amendments laid by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, exempting basic rate taxpayers would, in practice, be operationally challenging and add significant further complexity to the tax system. That is because the tax system can confirm which band an individual is in only at the end of a tax year, when reconciliation of their income tax liabilities has taken place. Adding complexity to the system would also likely lead to an increase in costs for employers, as they would be required to bear the burden of identifying the full extent of their employees’ potentially multiple sources of income.

This leads me to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek clarity on the basis on which the Government consider certain employed earners to be “higher earners” for the purposes of the national insurance charge, as well as how the contributions limit reflects that assessment. The Explanatory Notes set out that the policy rationale is to limit

“the NICs relief available to higher earners on employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice arrangements whilst protecting lower earning pension savers by introducing a £2,000 threshold. Most employees and their employers who make typical pensions contributions via salary sacrifice will be unaffected”.

This is indeed the effect of the Bill. Some 87% of pension contributions made via salary sacrifice above £2,000 are forecast to come from higher and additional rate taxpayers. Some 74% of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be protected by the £2,000 cap, and almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less will be protected.

Let me turn lastly to the amendments in this grouping tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They seek to exempt salary sacrificed pension contributions over the limit from being included in student loan repayments definitions to employees making student loan repayments. The salary sacrifice changes made through the Bill equalise the national insurance contributions treatment of salary sacrifice above the cap with other types of employee pension contribution, which are counted as earnings when calculating student loan repayments.

There may or may not be good arguments for or against that, but we do not consider this Bill an appropriate vehicle through which to amend the basis of student loan repayments. The basis of calculating income from student loan repayments is set out in separate regulations, and we do not believe that this Bill should seek to vary that. It is also the case that, of employees making contributions via salary sacrifice, younger people are much more likely to be fully protected by the £2,000 cap than those over the age of 30. Some 76% of those in their 20s who use salary sacrifice are protected by the cap, compared to half of those aged 30 and above.

In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

4: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(6DA) Contributions to pensions where employees are not offered alternative compensation are not to be treated as optional remuneration arrangements.”Member’s explanatory statement
Where an employee has the option of a cash allowance or additional pension contribution, that would be an optional remuneration arrangement. But where no cash alternative is offered then there is clearly no optional arrangement and this amendment would therefore make it exempt.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The purpose of the Bill is to catch salary sacrifice schemes. As we discussed in the previous group, this is where an optional remuneration arrangement has been made, but there are instances when an increased pension could be offered to an employee and no option is offered for the cash increase in salary. That is the area that I am exploring in my amendments.

In these circumstances—according to the Labour Party’s manifesto, the drafting of the Bill and all the Explanatory Notes—I do not think there is an intention to change the national insurance treatment. Indeed, this is clarified in the policy background sections of the Explanatory Notes on the Bill issued by the Government. This amendment, tabled by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, seeks to make that clear and cannot be seen as controversial.

Amendment 4 is easier to explain than Amendment 3, so let me have a go. I accept that Amendment 3 is not easy to understand, and I am not sure I understood the Minister’s response to it. It would be very helpful if, before Report, he could clarify whether he agrees that, as I suggest in Amendment 3, the definition of earnings will be affected by the Bill, and whether the Government will address that issue.

The Bill is predicated on the definitions of optional remuneration arrangements. They can include company cars and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said—assisted places in nursery, medical insurance and other areas, but the Bill makes it clear that we are focusing here on salary sacrifice. The reason for my amendment is that there may be some people who achieve an increase in pension contributions but not through salary sacrifice. In my view, an optional remuneration arrangement has not been properly scoped or defined for the purpose of the Bill.

Perhaps it is easiest to understand this concept when thinking about a new employee. Such a person will be negotiating their compensation with a potential employer. Let us say they are offered a salary of £50,000 and a £5,000 pension contribution. They might feel that this is insufficient payment and seek a higher salary. The employer could refuse that on the basis that all people of that rank in their organisation receive a sum of £50,000 and they have no flexibility—but they may offer an increased pension of £10,000 rather than £5,000 to reach an agreement. How is that negotiated figure of £10,000, which was previously £5,000, to be treated? What if the employer said, “I will reduce the salary to £45,000 and give you £15,000 in pension”? Is this an optional remuneration arrangement, particularly with a prospective, rather than actual, employee?

Similarly, let us look at termination settlements. An employee may receive a lump sum in lieu of any other claim and might be offered an excess amount over the normal £30,000 to be paid directly to the pension scheme. Is that an optional remuneration arrangement?

Let us consider something perhaps closer to home for the Minister: cases where collective bargaining takes place. There might be two offers on the table: one is for a 5% increase in pay but will keep employer pension contributions at 8%, and the other is for a 4% increase with an increased employer pension contribution of 10%. If the collective bargaining unions agree on the latter, are we to assume that this is an optional remuneration agreement? I would assume not, but it is not clear.

In the negotiations of remuneration, what if a person agrees with an employer that they will not take any increase in salary but they want a greater pension payment? That is not salary sacrifice—which is in the heading of the Bill and peppered throughout the definitions used in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes—but does it qualify as an optional remuneration arrangement?

This is a probing amendment to try to get some clarity into the Bill. Clarity is needed because there is so much in the Bill that, frankly, does not seem to have been considered as it relates to people’s working lives.

Amendment 33, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—and, yes, in this group—deals with the very difficult situation where a person has a number of employments. It seems a bit disappointing that the Bill does not address this obvious problem. Perhaps the draftsman had only one job—I do not know. National insurance contributions are typically calculated weekly or monthly for most employees, and calculated separately by different employers, assuming such employees are not part of the same group; if it is all one group company, it is done by one head office, typically.

The question arises: how will the £2,000 limit be applied across different periods and employments? This could be covered in regulation later, I suppose, which seems the Government’s favourite approach to much of legislation, but it is right to discuss this in Committee and encourage the Government to put their thinking cap on now to try to get it right so that there can be proper consultation and scrutiny before the legislation is enacted.

Where employees are paid monthly, should that employer apply 1/12th of the £2,000 to each month’s salary-sacrificed earnings or wait until the month in the year in which that amount has exceeded £2,000? Likewise, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, questioned, what happens when an annual bonus is paid? Does that distort the £2,000, which I assume is for the year to 5 April? The bonus could be paid in May or June, completely distorting all the figures. If an employee changes employment part way through the year, how does that work in practice? Does the amount sacrificed in the old employment carry over to the new employment, or should the employee benefit from two separate caps, which will be the requirement for information to be passed from one employer to another? How will HMRC cope with this? Currently, no information exchanges are available.

Then, of course, there are a number of us—I include myself—who hold down more than one job at a time. I declare that interest, although I am not caught by the Bill. Will the £2,000 annual cap be split between each employment, or can employees benefit from two separate caps so that each employer can offer £2,000—which might encourage some slightly unexpected behaviour of people taking lots of jobs, or with subsidiaries or associates, as a clever avoidance trick? There is already incentive within the NI system to do this, as separate allowances exist for separate employers.

We also have to think about financial privacy here, as information would need to be shared across different employers. I raised earlier the problems facing us where an employee does not actually sacrifice salary but still makes a pension contribution, and it is not clear what happens if an employee enters into a bonus waiver in exchange for an increased employer pension contribution. It is complicated, because the employee has no legal rights to the bonus, so there is nothing to sacrifice. What is the Government’s view in these circumstances?

All in all, one can see an administrative nightmare all around. It would be extremely helpful if these issues could be addressed by the Treasury in guidance, setting out the basis on which the Treasury considers how the Bill will apply before it comes into force, hence my amendment.

While on my feet, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which seem pretty clever to me. I am somewhat annoyed I did not think of them myself, because it is pretty obvious when you read his amendments that it must be right—I am supposed be the chartered accountant—that there should be some spreading to allow for circumstances where one year was not a good year and another was. That seems only fair. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 4A, 4B, 17A and 17B, and the associated review clause, Clause 29A. I will also speak to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.

Taken together, these amendments try to address the practical workability of proposals for employers with employees who have multiple employments and fluctuating income, and to ensure consistency with other parts of the taxation system while being consistent across Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

How easy it must be for the huddles of Ministers and civil servants sitting in their little meeting pods in that ground floor cafe at 1 Horse Guards—or perhaps dialling in from home, having taken the dog for a walk—to tinker with their spreadsheets and to come up with policies viewed through the lens of their personal experiences but which do not stand up in the real world. We have new tax policies that have damaged the national economy and growth. This Bill in particular, however, damages incentives for individual employees and companies for which they work; these are incentives to work hard, to climb the ladder, to improve yourself and to save for a secure retirement, and incentives for employers to attract the best talent.

As we have heard, it is not just the people on 100 grand that this policy affects—although it raises their marginal tax rate to 70% if they are paying off a student loan—it affects a whole raft of people. With the minimum wage now set at over £26,000, millions of ordinary hard-working people—the sort of people this Government say would escape higher taxation—will now be snared in this net, as the Daily Telegraph has reported. It amounts to a new tax on workers; this much we know. But my amendment focuses on the potential unfairness to a particular type of hard-working employee that makes it nearly impossible for their employers to administer it: an employee juggling several jobs.

How do the Government intend to deal with this and make fair the practical unintended consequences and perverse outcomes? Let us take the example of the employee who works several jobs. How will her employer know when or if she has maximally sacrificed her two salaries without reference to the other? That point was made very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. The noble Lord also identified the privacy issues that come with this—which I wish I would have thought of.

Let us take another example, of an employee engaged in seasonal work who wants to save monthly into a pension on salary sacrifice. How does he set his regular contribution at the start of the year without knowing whether he will bust his allowance later on? In his winding on the previous group, the Minister said that you will never know the band until the end of the tax year--well, quite.

What about the employer who wants to do the right thing by his graduate employees and knows how difficult the job market is for them right now? Let us say he wants to attract the best talent by offering accelerated repayments of student loans by way of a salary sacrifice opportunity. We have a colleague in this House who is a graduate, and his graduate loan is running away; he is paying off £400 a month and still the debt is getting larger. We must help these people.

What about the youngster saving for a pension? As I said at Second Reading, my daughter’s boyfriend is no fat cat; he is living in a flat share with people he does not know in Brixton—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, ever knocked on his door as I invited him to do at Second Reading. But ask his opinion on this and he will say that instead of improving his own financial security—and perhaps that of my daughter in due course—by reducing his dependence on the state in later life, his ability to save for his future and to progress now is weakened. These are practical and personal examples; each of them damages that incentive to work hard and save hard. That is bad enough.

However, this Bill further discriminates against the private sector worker who needs to save for his own retirement under the direct contribution system, when public sector employees have the taxpayer pitching in another 20% to their pot. The ham-fisted way this Bill ignores the real-life complexities for these real-life people and their real-life examples that exist outside the comfortable, monthly-paid final salary pension world shows how the Treasury views these things through its own particular lens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore]

Obviously, I hear what the noble Baroness says.

The carryover feature of the pensions annual allowance, referenced in the justification for the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, sets the maximum amount of tax-relieved pension savings an individual can build up in a tax year without triggering a tax charge, which for most people is £60,000. The carryover feature is intended to accommodate one-off irregular spikes in pension saving or defined benefit accrual. The annual allowance carry-forward requires individuals to hold or obtain accurate records to track usage and eligibility and is not intended for day-to-day retirement planning. The Government do not consider it suitable to introduce a similar mechanism in the context of the cap on national insurance contribution-free pension saving in the Bill.

Before the detailed regulations that support the introduction of this change are finalised, HMRC will work closely with employers, payroll providers and software developers to ensure the policy operates smoothly for businesses and individuals. This engagement is not a formality. It is a necessary step to ensure that we collaboratively identify the best and most workable way to apply the £2,000 national insurance contributions-free limit, minimise administrative burdens and avoid unintended consequences, particularly for those whose earnings are spread across more than one employment.

Taking the time to engage properly and test implementation options is the best way to ensure that the policy works as intended from the outset. That is why the Government have committed sufficient time to work with stakeholders, up to and including the preparation of the important guidance for operation that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has raised in Amendment 29A.

On Amendment 29A, which proposes a reporting provision on the administrative cost borne by employers, I note that, upon the introduction of the Bill to Parliament, a tax information and impact note was published by the Government, setting out the impact of this policy’s operationalisation on employees and their employers. Supporting those who will implement this change within their organisations is vital, but we do not agree that that support should take the form of additional reporting requirements.

In light of all the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, this debate has been very helpful because it has sort of blown a hole in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, summed it up rightly: what has happened is that the Government started with the answer and then tried to find the question. In other words, they were desperately looking to find £4 billion from somewhere and came up with this random salary sacrifice idea. Why salary sacrifice? Why not say that NI on pensions does not apply over X amount and limit it that way? I am afraid that the Bill just does not work.

For example, in the case I raised about a new employee where an employer is negotiating over X amount of salary or Y amount of pension, is that a salary sacrifice? The Minister could not answer that. On the £2,000 cap, the Minister could not answer. He could not answer on the collective bargaining point or whether a bonus applies. On how we deal with multiple employments, I do not think that was satisfactorily answered. I also think that the spreading point was not satisfactorily answered.

I take the point that this provision is not scheduled to come in until April 2029. I respectfully make the point that we might all be busy then on other matters but, given that the earliest is April 2029, is it not right now to pause the Bill, work constructively with us and many others who have much greater knowledge, certainly than people on this Bench, and to think through how we might find a constructive way forward? Just hoping that we might get it right in regulation is bypassing democracy. It is the purpose of the House of Lords to examine Bills, make constructive suggestions, identify and highlight holes and issues, and seek to amend them. It is fair enough that this is what the Government want to do, but they have to be clear as to how it works before the Bill goes through.

I suspect the Government will find fierce opposition to the Bill as it is on Report from a large number of people in the House, so one would hope that the Government will pause, reflect, consider and consult—on the Bill, not in regulations—to enable us to get this right. The Minister is very good at putting himself in our shoes and has done so to some extent, and I hope that he will do so again in respect of these amendments. I particularly hope that Amendment 29A comes in, so that a future Chancellor can produce a report. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 4.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is worth reminding ourselves that this legislation was prompted by a document published in May last year with this eye-catching title: Understanding the Attitudes and Behaviours of Employers Towards Salary Sacrifice for Pensions. It concluded:

“All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”,


including the £2,000 cap, were “viewed negatively” by those interviewed. It said that the changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits for employees and disincentivise saving for a pension. The report came to the conclusion that, of the three proposed hypothetical options for change, the £2,000 cap was no more than the least bad option.

As has been discussed here, even the OBR has stated that, in the first year in which this measure bites, there will be an estimated revenue of £4.48 billion from the Bill, but it will drop in the next year to £2.6 billion. That is a massive fall in revenue. Should HM Treasury not be worried about this? Should it not be asking itself, “How can we bring in something that leads to a drop in revenue of 50% in year 1?”? The taxpayer wants to know. Could an assessment be done of whether this is likely to be the case in some of the scenarios set out in these amendments—in particular, the £5,000 and the £10,000? I do not know this, because I do not have the resources to do that, but I suspect that, although bringing the cap in at £5,000 and £10,000 would not lead to the £4.48 billion in year 1, it would lead to a much more consistent figure in the subsequent years, for the long-term benefit of the country. As my noble friend Lord Mackinlay said, it will be a bit of a sugar rush and will force people to make most unfortunate changes in their patterns of savings, which the Government cannot be keen to see happen.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

First, I will address Amendments 6, 10, 11, 13, 19, 22, 23 and 25 in the names of by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Londesborough. These amendments seek to uprate the cap by the percentage change in the consumer prices index or the retail prices index. The Government agree on the need to keep the level of the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet its policy objective: keeping the cost of salary sacrifice tax reliefs on a fiscally sustainable footing while protecting ordinary workers. However, we disagree with the approach set out in these amendments because it would be inconsistent with the approach taken in respect of other pension tax reliefs, which are not routinely indexed with inflation.

For example, in 2023, when the previous Government made changes to the annual allowance, they increased it by a set amount rather than indexing it; the annual allowance was otherwise not routinely uprated or index-linked. The Government are taking a pragmatic, balanced approach to ensuring that the cost of tax relief on salary sacrifice pension contributions remains fiscally sustainable. The future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for future Budgets in those decades.

This leads me on to Amendments 7 to 9, 20 and 21 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Londesborough. These amendments seek to increase the cap beyond £2,000. It is important to consider the level of the cap in the wider context of the objectives of this change, which are about keeping the tax system on a sustainable footing while protecting ordinary workers. Without reform, the cost of this tax relief is now set to almost treble in cost, from £2.8 billion to £8 billion, with the vast majority of the benefit going to higher earners because around 62% of salary sacrifice contributions come from the top 20% of earners. Although some tax experts have called for pension salary sacrifice to be abolished entirely, the Government are taking a more measured and pragmatic approach.

As I said earlier this afternoon, the £2,000 cap protects 74% of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice. This means that three-quarters of those earning up to £50,270 a year who use salary sacrifice will be protected by the cap. Almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less who use salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected by the changes. Some 87% of salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. Increasing the level of the cap in the way proposed by these amendments would cost additional money and would undermine the objective of putting this tax relief on a sustainable footing for the future. Such changes should also be considered in the wider context of pension tax relief, which amounts to more than £70 billion each year; that spend will be entirely unaffected by this legislation.

In the light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.