National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

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

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, D, E, F, F1, G, G1, H, H1, J, K, L, M and M1. The other place has disagreed with Amendments 1 to 12, as they would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is deemed sufficient.

While the Government disagree with the substance of these amendments, I am pleased that we have been able to discuss and debate these issues. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham, Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Fuller, Lord Mackinlay and Lord Londesborough, for ensuring that these important matters have been addressed. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords are content not to insist on these amendments.

I turn now specifically to Amendments 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 6B, 6C, 7B, 7C, 8B, 8C, 12B and 12C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. These amendments would make commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of impact assessments on basic rate taxpayers, employees making student loan repayments and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Before addressing each of these in turn, it may be helpful if I remind your Lordships’ House of the documents that have already been published by the Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility. The tax information and impact note sets out the expected impacts of the policy on individuals, employers and the Exchequer. The policy costing note sets out details on the costings of the measure, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of behavioural responses expected by employers and employees.

The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the Government’s policy costings. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note which provided additional information it received prior to last year’s Budget to further increase the transparency of this measure.

I should also like to remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy costing note and both the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and supplementary note. Both the Government and the OBR have been transparent about the expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals.

I turn first to amendments which make the commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of economic and behavioural impact assessments on basic rate taxpayers. As set out in the Budget document, the £2,000 cap means that 74% of basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected by these changes. The remaining proportion of basic rate taxpayers who have contributions above the cap will still get national insurance contributions relief for the first £2,000 of contributions made by salary sacrifice in addition to the full income tax relief that is available to all employee pension contributions. Further, 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a fair and pragmatic reform, and the distributional effects of it are clear. On this basis, the Government do not consider a separate and additional impact assessment on basic rate taxpayers to be needed.

I turn to amendments which make commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of economic and behavioural impact assessments on individuals repaying student loans. It is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given that, over the past 14 years, they have seen their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. Importantly, though, the £2,000 cap means that young graduates are broadly unaffected. In fact, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans who are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure. Both this and the prior set of amendments make a broader point about pension savings and pensions adequacy for these populations. This is a real challenge for our pensions system, but the data is entirely clear that today’s salary sacrifice is not the answer. As discussed at earlier stages, salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were falls in private sector pension saving during that period.

There has been a clear consensus throughout our debates that the key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years has been automatic enrolment. As a result, more than 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.

Although we all share a commitment to improving pensions adequacy, many groups at highest risk of undersaving, including the self-employed, lower earners and women, are not the most likely to benefit from salary sacrifice. Only one in five self-employed people save into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but higher earners are more likely to be using salary sacrifice. Many women are undersaving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.

The pensions tax relief system remains hugely generous and there remain significant incentives to save into a pension. The £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief which the Government currently provide on pensions each year will be entirely unaffected by these changes.

I turn to the amendments seeking an impact assessment on small and medium-sized enterprises and charities. The Government agree on the importance of supporting small and medium-sized businesses and charities, but small businesses are much less likely to use salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Furthermore, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. Indeed, the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice accrue to larger businesses, not smaller ones. In practice, the changes in the Bill will help level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors.

The amendment also requires assessment of the expected impact on business and compliance costs. This analysis is already set out in the tax information and impact note. As set out in that document, the administration of this measure is estimated to result in a one-off cost of £75 and an ongoing £99 per business per year for those using salary sacrifice.

The Government recognise that these changes will impact those currently using salary sacrifice. That is why we chose a long lead-in time of April 2029 to give employers maximum time to prepare for these changes. As mentioned previously, HMRC is engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way with the fewest administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes that use salary sacrifice. For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness does not press her Motions. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, once again, taken together, this is a further insult to working people. As we have heard this evening, it is about not the fat cats but the youngsters and the poorer paid who are starting off and trying to do the right thing, making their way in the world. There is already intergenerational unfairness, and this Bill amplifies it and makes it worse. The Government have a tin ear. When they say they are trying to look after the youngsters, they are speaking with a forked tongue. Youngsters just want a break, but this Government are beating them with a stick. We have got to stop it.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

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

On the topic of impact assessments, I remind noble Lords of the information that we have already published. The tax information impact note sets out the expected impacts of the policy on individuals, employers and the Exchequer. The policy costing note sets out detail on the costing of the measure, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of behavioural responses expected by employers and employees. The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the policy costing. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note which provides additional information it received prior to last year’s Budget.

I also remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy costing note and both the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and supplementary note. Both the Government and the OBR have been very transparent about the expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about the 2029 implementation date. As I have said already, we chose a long lead-in time of April 2029 to give employers maximum time to prepare for the changes. As I have mentioned before, HMRC is engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way with the fewest administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes which use salary sacrifice.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, spoke about small and medium-sized enterprises. I say again that the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees and SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. The noble Lord also mentioned students. He is absolutely right; as I said before, it is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given that, over the past 14 years, they saw their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. The £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under 30 repaying student loans who are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure.

These are fair and balanced reforms. They give employers many years to prepare and they ensure that both our pensions system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. The £2,000 cap protects lower-earning employees who use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions and preserves the tax benefit of salary sacrifice for all employees on the first £2,000 of their contributions.

Importantly, these changes leave the tax reliefs on regular pension contributions completely untouched. These reliefs are worth £70 billion a year and are available to all workers and employers, not just those who use salary sacrifice. For the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, not to press her Motions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, particularly on the question of the behavioural assessments that we have had. They are really not fit for purpose. I give notice that will I seek to test the opinion of the House on Motion A1 and, if successful, on further Motions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.

5A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.

6A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion G

[Lord Livermore]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

7A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion G1 not moved.

Motion H

[Lord Livermore]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.

8A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion H1 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion J

[Lord Livermore]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.

9A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion J agreed.

Motion K

[Lord Livermore]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.

10A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion K agreed.

Motion L

[Lord Livermore]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.

11A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion L agreed.

Motion M

[Lord Livermore]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.

12A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion M1 not moved.

Reducing Government Spending

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to (1) data released by the Office for National Statistics on 20 March showing that public sector borrowing in February was £14.3 billion, and (2) the increase in 10-year gilt yields, what plans they have to reduce Government spending.

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

My Lords, UK markets are of course affected by global developments, but it is long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific market movements. Because of this Government’s economic plan, we are more prepared for a more volatile world, with lower inflation and more resilient public finances. This year the deficit will fall by £20 billion, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP—its lowest level for six years and the fastest reduction in the G7. Global financial market volatility means that it is more important than ever to have a robust fiscal framework. We will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government by returning to austerity or cutting public investment. That was a short-term fix that has created long-term problems.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the ultimate judge and arbiter of the Government’s success is the bond market. As of this afternoon, 10-year gilts are at 4.91%, higher than in the famous Liz Truss era, which Members on the opposite Benches are so keen to reflect back at us, and the highest in the G7. The OBR had said that the UK’s fiscal position is vulnerable to external events, and so it proved. Will the Minister explain to us why we are in this position and what steps HM Government are taking to reduce government spend, particularly in welfare?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I said at the outset, of course UK markets are affected by global developments but it is a long-standing convention that the Government, as an issuer in gilt markets, do not comment on specific market moves. The noble Lord will be aware that the full economic impact of the conflict will depend on its severity and duration, but we enter this period of uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong. The spring forecast showed that this year borrowing falls by almost 1 percentage point to its lowest level for six years, 4.3%. That is the largest fall in the deficit since 2016. Borrowing as a share of GDP will then fall in every year of the forecast, from 4.3% in 2025 to 1.6% in 2030. Borrowing will fall more than in any other G7 economy. This year, for the first time since 2004, we will be borrowing less than the rest of the G7 on average.

The noble Lord asked about welfare. It is right to point out that in the last five years of the previous Government, spending on welfare increased by £88 billion. No one believes that the system we inherited is working: it abandoned too many people to a life on benefits, it wrote off too many people as too sick to work and it condemned too many children to be too poor to eat. That is exactly why we are reforming the welfare system.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a suggestion for saving money in the public sector. At the moment, billionaire farmers who do not pay any tax in the UK can claim farming subsidies. Is it right that we all pay them extra money at a time when they have not paid money into the system?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am sure my noble friend makes a very interesting point. It is notable, though, that the party opposite’s first instinct is to cut spending at a moment of instability such as this. That is precisely the stop-go pattern of investment that got us into the problems that our economy is now in. Cutting investment at this point and returning to austerity would be the very worst thing that we could do for growth—the very definition of short-termism—yet that is precisely what previous Chancellors with previous fiscal rules have done. In the years following the financial crisis, austerity took demand out of the economy when it was needed most, undermining investment in critical infrastructure, weakening productivity and choking off growth. Unlike today’s Conservative Party, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, despite these volatile times, the Debt Management Office, on behalf of the Treasury, still seems determined to issue £20.4 billion in index-linked gilts this year. The cost of servicing the UK’s national debt is already far more vulnerable to rises in interest rates than comparable countries, thanks to past issuances which have meant that 25% of our national debt is index-linked. Surely it is time to rethink this strategy.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Debt Management Office’s operations continue to see strong demand, with efficient pricing. As I have said already, this year the Government will reduce the deficit by £20 billion since last year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP, and global financial market volatility means it is more important than ever to have a robust fiscal framework, with fiscal rules that provide stability, ensure our public services are sustainably funded and reduce the burden on future generations.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, in January the Chancellor said that the UK is

“in a very strong position”

to withstand new shocks to the public finances without further tax rises. Can the Minister repeat that assurance?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Of course, I agree with everything the Chancellor says. Since coming to office, this Government have implemented an economic plan to bring stability to the public finances and to strengthen Britain’s economy for the long term. The forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, published last month, showed that our plan is working and that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong. We have cut inflation, which is standing now at 3%, a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards and have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend spell out to the House the benefits of increased public expenditure on health and how this actually contributes to economic growth? Can he spell out the benefits of increased public expenditure on defence, which contributes to the safety of the United Kingdom? Does he agree with me that the years of Tory austerity directly damaged the defence standing of this country?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with everything my noble friend says. The legacy of underinvestment from the previous Government still affects the economy today. When we won the election, private sector investment was the lowest in the whole G7. Public sector investment was no better and was set to fall again from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP. We have invested £120 billion of additional capital investment. The OBR estimates the eventual growth impact of this increase in capital investment as adding 1.4% to GDP. As I have said before, cutting this and returning to austerity would be the very worst thing that we could do for growth. Unlike today’s Conservative Party, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the facts that were included in my noble friend’s Question show that we face a very troubling position on the public finances. I think the Chancellor’s Statement has done nothing to reassure the markets today. The Government’s economic policy is not fit for purpose, if it ever was. Do the Government recognise the seriousness of the position, and what do they propose to do about it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We do. As I said already, and as we know, the full economic impact of the conflict will depend on its severity and duration, but this year borrowing falls by almost one percentage point to its lowest level for six years, 4.3%. This is the largest fall in the deficit since 2016. For the first time since 2004, we will be borrowing less than the rest of the G7 on average, something the previous Government did not achieve in their 14 years in power. I should point out that these falls in borrowing are as a result of some tough decisions that we have taken on the public finances. The noble Baroness and the party opposite have opposed every single one of those decisions we have taken to get the public finances under control.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the reaction of the Opposition Front Bench illustrate three things—first, the folly of criticising a medium-term policy of stability on the basis of one month’s figures; secondly, a failure to understand that the gilt rate is determined in international markets and that, for example, the rate on US treasuries has risen rather more in percentage terms than the rate on UK gilts; and, thirdly, the persistent addiction of the Conservative Party to the economics of austerity?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is far more expert than me, and I agree entirely with all three points that he makes. I do not seek to add very much to what he says, but I agree most of all with his last point that returning to austerity would be the very worst thing we could do at this point for growth.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

I hope the House will forgive me, but I can scarcely keep up with the good news that the Minister keeps showering upon us, so may I ask him for an indication—not a guarantee or promise but an indication—that he will put his noble name to? One thing he has not mentioned is when unemployment will start coming down. Can he tell us whether it will be in 2027, 2028 or 2029, or have the workers’ Government forgotten about the unemployed?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I can only go by what the OBR says, and it says it will be 2026. The OBR said that unemployment will peak later this year before falling for the remainder of the forecast period, ending the Parliament lower than the rate we inherited at the election. Clearly, the economic impact of the situation in the Middle East will depend on its severity and duration, but the OBR forecasts that over the course of this Parliament, employment will rise and the unemployment rate will fall.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Livermore Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Scottish and Welsh legislative consent granted. Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Economic Affairs Committee.

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

I beg to move.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Spring Forecast Statement

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House takes note of the Spring Forecast Statement.

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

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate on the spring forecast and the Second Reading of the finance Bill. I very much look forward to the valedictory speech from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso.

On taking office, this Government inherited three major crises: a crisis in the public finances, a crisis in our public services and a crisis in the cost of living. That is why we have repeatedly taken the action necessary to bring stability to the economy. The choices we have made are the responsible ones. The spring forecast showed that the economic plan that we have been driving forward since the election is the right one.

In our first Budget, we took action to fix the foundations of the economy by repairing the £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by the previous Government. At the spending review last summer, we stuck to our non-negotiable fiscal rules, keeping a tight grip on day-to-day spending while investing an additional £120 billion in growth-driving infrastructure and getting debt on a downward path. In the Budget last November, we built greater resilience by doubling the headroom against the stability rule and cutting borrowing as a share of GDP in every year of the forecast.

Our economic plan is built on three pillars: stability in our public finances, investment in our infrastructure and reform to Britain’s economy. Stability is the cornerstone of this plan because it is the single most important precondition for economic growth. That is why we have committed to one fiscal event a year, limiting major policy changes to the Budget, helping to give businesses and households the certainty that they need to plan and to invest.

The forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, published last month, shows that our plan is working and that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong. We have cut inflation, which stands now at 3%—a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards. The OBR forecast showed GDP per head set to grow more than was expected at the Budget, with growth of 5.6% over this Parliament. We have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP.

These forecasts pre-date the current conflict in the Middle East. The full economic impact of that conflict will depend on its severity and its duration. The movements on energy markets that we have seen are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months. Our economic approach will be responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest. As the Government have demonstrated time and again, we will take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living and to protect the public finances.

This Government are delivering the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. The Chancellor has also approved access for the Ministry of Defence to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the Middle East, meaning that no net additional costs of these operations will be funded by the Ministry of Defence, but instead will be funded by the Treasury.

Last week, following her call with other G7 Finance Ministers, the Chancellor set out her further priorities for international co-operation: for immediate de-escalation and a return to a diplomatic process; guaranteeing the security of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz; supporting a co-ordinated release of collective International Energy Agency oil reserves, the release of which has since helped to stabilise international oil markets; and setting out how the UK will play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance. On Friday, the Chancellor met petrol retailers and energy suppliers to make it clear that the Government would not tolerate any company exploiting the current situation to make excess profits at consumers’ expense.

While we do not yet know how long this conflict will last, it underlines the importance of building a stronger, more secure economy able to withstand whatever instability we may face. The strength of our economy and public finances is possible only because of the Budget last year and the measures contained in the finance Bill before us today.

That Budget had at its heart three pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability, getting inflation and interest rates down, we helped give businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we protected £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing companies of the future, we supported the investment, innovation and economic dynamism that will increase growth in the next decade and beyond. That includes measures in the Bill to make Britain the best place in the world for firms to start, scale and stay. We are doing that by widening eligibility for our enterprise incentives so that scale-ups can attract the talent and the capital that they need. We are expanding the enterprise management incentive so that more companies can offer tax relief share options, and we are re-engineering our enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes so that they do not back just early-stage ideas but stay with companies as they grow. For all businesses, large and small, we are also maintaining the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7 and the joint most generous capital allowances in the OECD.

In her Mais Lecture today, the Chancellor went further on our growth agenda by setting out how we will deepen our economic relationship with our European partners, how we will back innovation and harness the power of AI, and how we will take the necessary action to build growth on a broad, stable basis right across the UK.

Of course, the pro-growth choices we made in the Budget need to be paid for, and that means asking everyone to make a contribution. The previous Government froze the main income tax thresholds from 2021 to 2028. This finance Bill maintains all income tax and equivalent national insurance thresholds at their current level for a further three years from 2028. I accept that maintaining these thresholds is a decision that will affect working people. The Chancellor and I both said this in 2024 and I will not pretend otherwise now.

However, while we are asking everyone to make a contribution, we are keeping that contribution as low as possible through reforms to our tax system to make it fairer and to ensure that the wealthiest contribute the most. That includes increasing taxes on property, dividend and savings income to narrow the gap between tax paid on work and tax paid on income from assets. Currently, a landlord with an income of £25,000 will pay nearly £1,200 less in tax than their tenant with the same salary because no national insurance is charged on property, dividend or savings income. That is not fair. That is why this finance Bill increases the basic and higher rate of tax on property, savings and dividend income by 2 percentage points, and the additional rate of tax on property and savings income by 2 percentage points. Around two-thirds of the revenue from these increases are expected to come from the top 20% of households.

We are also reforming the tax system to ensure that it keeps pace with a fast-changing economy. This finance Bill increases taxes on online gaming and online betting, while protecting UK horseracing and abolishing bingo duty. It prevents private hire vehicle operators exploiting a tax administration scheme so that everyone pays fairly. We are going further to close the tax gap to ensure that everyone pays the tax that they owe. Reforms contained in this finance Bill will help to collect more unpaid taxes and modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right first time.

We have listened carefully to feedback from the farming community and family businesses, and the Bill raises the threshold for the 100% rate of relief on agricultural property and business property from £1 million to £2.5 million. This means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million of agricultural or business assets tax free on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band.

Since coming into office, this Government have implemented an economic plan to bring stability to the public finances and to strengthen Britain’s economy for the long term. The spring forecast shows that this plan is the right one, with lower inflation and borrowing, higher living standards and a growing economy. Britain today is in a stronger position to withstand whatever uncertainty comes our way, but that is possible only because of the action we took in the Budget last year and the measures contained in this finance Bill. They are the right choices to protect families and businesses in an uncertain world, and they demonstrate that this Government have the right economic plan for Britain’s future. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate on the spring forecast and the Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, which I have enjoyed listening to. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for his valedictory speech and his service to your Lordships’ House over many years. It was a wide-ranging speech spanning Nelson Mandela, energy policy and AI, among other issues. In this, it was a perfect representation of the experience he has brought to our debates. I wish him very well for the future.

On taking office, this Government inherited three major crises: in the public finances, in our public services and in the cost of living. That is why we have repeatedly taken the action necessary to bring stability to the economy, as welcomed by my noble friend Lord Barber of Chittlehampton. The choices we made were the responsible ones, and the spring forecast showed that the economic plan we have been driving forward since the election is the right one.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, that growth comes from businesses and investors. That is why our economic plan is built on the three pillars, as my noble friends Lord Chandos and Lady Gill reminded us, of stability in our public finances, investment in our infrastructure and reform of Britain’s economy.

My noble friends Lady Bi and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe rightly spoke about the importance of having just one fiscal event a year and the stability that brings. The OBR forecast published last month showed that our plan is working and that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong, as my noble friend Lord Barber said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about inflation, neglecting to mention that it hit 11% under her Government. We have cut inflation, which now stands at 3%, a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal war on Ukraine. She also mentioned interest rates, forgetting to mention not only that they have been cut six times under this Government but that they were set soaring by the Liz Truss mini-Budget.

We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards. The OBR forecast showed GDP per head set to grow more than was expected at the Budget, with growth of 5.6% over the Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson said, we have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, spoke about the growth forecast. Average growth over the next five years is broadly unchanged, with slightly lower growth this year and slightly higher growth next year and the year after that. The noble Lord, Lord Hintze, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about the importance of GDP per head. GDP per capita is now set to grow faster than was forecast in the autumn; with growth of 5.6% over this Parliament, GDP per capita is £2,300 higher in the last year of the forecast compared with the first.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about the potential for falling migration to impact OBR forecasts going forward. As my noble friend Lady Gill said, Britain was the fastest-growing G7 economy in Europe last year. That is why we have the right economic plan to deliver higher long-term economic growth.

The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke about the language used by the OBR to describe unemployment, which I am afraid I am not responsible for. Many noble Lords focused on unemployment, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, Lord Northbrook, Lord Altrincham and Lord Massey of Hampstead. Employment is historically high. There are only two peacetime years out of the past 150 when the average annual employment rate has been higher than it was in 2025.

Forecasts from the OBR show that unemployment will peak later this year and then fall progressively for the remainder of the Parliament, ending the Parliament lower than it was when we took office. There is, though, action needed to address in particular the number of young people out of work, something that has been focused on in the contributions of many noble Lords. That is why we are providing £2.5 billion across the youth guarantee to tackle youth unemployment and, through additional investment in the growth and skills levy, to reform apprenticeships and prioritise young people. This will support almost 1 million young people and help deliver up to 500,000 opportunities to earn or learn.

The noble Lords, Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Hintze, spoke about living standards. The last Parliament was the worst on record for living standards. Living standards are now rising. GDP per capita is set to grow more than was forecast in the autumn. Real wages have grown more in the first year of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous one.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about inflation. We have cut inflation, which now stands at 3%, a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. The OBR forecasted last month that inflation would fall faster than predicted in November and will return to target this year rather than next year.

Clearly, these forecasts took place before the current conflict in the Middle East began. Movements on energy markets, as we have already seen, are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months. As the Government have demonstrated, we will take the necessary action to help families with the cost of living and protect the public finances.

My noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson talked about the need to build growth in partnership with business, something I agree very much with. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, talked about business experience, and he referenced what he described as the Government’s lack of business experience compared with the previous Government. We inherited an economy from the previous Government where the UK was the only G7 country with private sector investment that was below 20% as a share of the economy.

Since the Government came to office, we have secured a record £360 billion of private investment. Retail sales are rising, and the S&P global PMI rose to a 17-month high in January. As several of my noble friends have said, business confidence comes from stability, and that stability underpins our economic plan.

I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Bi on her comments about the value of London and the international importance of the City of London in terms of financial and professional services. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe about the importance of public/private partnerships.

The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, spoke about procurement, the role of AI and the potential consequences of AI on the labour market. They are all timely points, following the Chancellor’s Mais Lecture this lunchtime, which focused on all the points that the noble Lord raised. I completely agree with him on the importance of using procurement wisely, and we have set out reforms today to do exactly that. On AI in the labour market, the Chancellor announced that we will establish an AI economics institute to develop policies exactly along the lines that the noble Lord mentioned in his speech.

I agree very much with what my noble friend Lady Gill said about the benefits of deepening our economic relationship with the European Union—something the Chancellor herself set out in her Mais Lecture today.

The noble Lord, Lord Patten, asked about the cost of producing the spring forecast. The Treasury does not calculate or record a stand-alone cost for producing the spring forecast; it is delivered using existing departmental resources across policy and analytical teams and forms part of routine fiscal and economic reporting obligations. As such, no additional or exceptional spending is incurred beyond normal staffing costs.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Lamont and Lord Redwood, my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about the impact of the conflict in the Middle East on the OBR’s most recent forecasts. The forecasts from the OBR, of course, pre-date the current conflict in the Middle East. Clearly, the full economic impact of the conflict will depend on its severity and duration.

The movements of energy markets, as we have already seen, are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months. Our economic approach will be both responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest. As the Government have demonstrated time and again, we will take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living and protect the public finances.

Any forecast is, of course, inevitably subject to uncertainty, particularly when global events are moving quickly. Although we do not yet know how long the conflict will last, it underlines the importance of building a stronger and more secure economy that is able to withstand whatever instability we may face.

In the Budget last November, we took £150 off the costs of energy bills. Yesterday, the Government announced immediate support for vulnerable heating oil customers, providing £53 million for the households most exposed. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, endorsed the view that any support should be targeted.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about fuel duty. The UK benefits from a strong and diverse security of energy supplies. The decisions we have taken since the Budget in 2024 will save the average motorist over £90, or 8p to 11p per litre, compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government.

As my noble friend Lord Chandos said, the Chancellor has written to the Competition and Markets Authority, asking it to remain vigilant across heating oil prices and recommending that it acts to tackle unjustified price increases. The Government are clear that we will not tolerate profiteering or unfair practices, and we urge customers to share any evidence of price manipulation with the CMA.

I agree with what many noble Lords—including the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Lamont and Lord Redwood—said about the importance of the North Sea. Domestic oil and gas must continue to have an important role in the energy mix for decades to come. That is why the Chancellor met with North Sea industry to discuss the consequences of this uncertain period. I also endorse what my noble friend Lord Barber said about critical minerals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about increasing defence spending. We are delivering the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. That equates to over £270 billion invested over the spending review period. Defence spending will rise to 2.6% of GDP next year—a level not seen since 2010. We are committed to spending 3% in the next Parliament when economic and fiscal conditions allow.

Although we do not yet know how long this conflict will last, it underlines the importance of building a stronger and more secure economy that is able to withstand whatever instability we face. The strength of our economy and public finances are possible only because of the Budget last year and the measures contained in the finance Bill before us today.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Liddle for chairing the Finance Bill Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee, as well as to other members of that committee: the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the impact on working people from further freezes to the national insurance thresholds. As I am sure noble Lords know, the Government are not increasing the headline rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT, in line with our manifesto, but we are clear that the decisions made in the Budget in November involve asking people to contribute more.

In reference to the points made by my noble friend Lord Sikka, this finance Bill raises revenue in a fair way, reforming the system to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share while limiting what we ask from ordinary workers.

My noble friend Lord Liddle focused in his comments on his concerns about the inheritance tax treatment of unused pension funds and death benefits, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton. This was a point also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. This measure removes distortions resulting from changes that have been made to pensions tax policy over the last decade, which have led to pensions being openly used and marketed as a tax-planning vehicle to transfer wealth, rather than as a way to fund retirement. As a result of these changes, more than 90% of estates will still pay no inheritance tax each year, and most estates will not pay inheritance tax on the pension, wealth and income tax that is due only from beneficiaries on inherited pensions in certain circumstances.

My noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Davies of Brixton, the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, raised the issue of personal representatives. Personal representatives who are already responsible for administering the rest of the estate will be liable for reporting and paying inheritance tax on any unused pension funds and death benefits from 6 April 2027. This is the same as the current process for non-discretionary pension schemes and other assets which do not pass directly through the estate but are in scope of inheritance tax. Since the announcement that the liability for paying inheritance tax on pensions will sit with personal representatives, officials have been engaging directly with tax and legal industry professionals to fully understand their concerns.

Budget 2025 announced that, where personal representatives reasonably expect inheritance tax to be due, they can direct pension scheme administrators to withhold 50% of the taxable benefits for up to 15 months from the date of death. Personal representatives can then direct pension scheme administrators to pay the inheritance tax due to HMRC before releasing the rest of those benefits to pension beneficiaries. If the instruction is withdrawn or the period ends, the remaining funds can be paid out. This will not apply to exempt benefits, funds under £1,000 or continuing annuities. Personal representatives will be discharged from liability for pensions discovered after they have received clearance from HMRC.

We are reforming the tax system to ensure it keeps pace with a fast-changing economy. We are going further to close the tax gap to ensure that everyone pays the tax they owe. Having listened carefully to feedback from the farming community and family businesses, this Bill raises the 100% rate of relief on agricultural property relief and business property relief from £1 million to £2.5 million. My noble friend Lord Liddle and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh Hurley, spoke about these reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief. The status quo is not sustainable and there is a clear need to reform agricultural property relief. A very small number of claimants benefit from a very significant amount of agricultural property and business property relief. The increase in the planned allowances from £1 million to £2.5 million further reduces the number of estates forecast to pay more inheritance tax and further reduces the liability for many of the remaining estates, meaning that a couple can leave £5 million completely free of tax on top of the usual reliefs and allowances.

My noble friend Lord Liddle spoke in favour of taxing wealth. The Government are committed to taxing wealth fairly. That is why, in the Autumn Budget Statement in 2024, we announced reforms to taxation of wealth and the wealthy that will raise over £8 billion, including reforms to non-domiciled tax, mentioned by several noble Lords this evening. We are now building on that action by reforming property taxes so that the highest value homes in England pay the most, and addressing reliefs in capital gains tax and inheritance tax that have grown in cost to the benefit of the wealthy. My noble friend Lord Liddle is absolutely right that we must reward and encourage enterprise, which we are doing, including in measures contained in this finance Bill.

Since coming to office, the Government have implemented an economic plan to bring stability to the public finances and to strengthen Britain’s economy for the long term. The spring forecast shows this plan is the right one, with lower inflation and borrowing, higher living standards and a growing economy. Britain today is in a stronger position to withstand whatever uncertainty comes our way, but that is possible only because of the action we took in the Budget last year and the measures contained in this finance Bill. They are the right choices to protect families and businesses in an uncertain world and they demonstrate that this Government have the right economic plan for Britain’s future.

Motion agreed.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Livermore Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, the cost of pension salary sacrifice was set to treble to £8 billion a year by the end of this decade. That increase has been driven mostly by high earners, with additional rate taxpayers tripling their salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. This includes individuals sacrificing their bonuses without paying any income tax and national insurance contributions on them. The status quo is neither fair nor fiscally sustainable. We simply cannot afford to allow the cost of pension salary sacrifice to balloon, benefiting predominantly higher earners.

The Bill therefore introduces a cap of £2,000 under which no employer or employee national insurance contributions will be charged on any pension contributions. It protects ordinary workers by using salary sacrifice and limits the impact on employers while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected.

Saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, will also remain hugely tax-advantageous under these changes. The Government currently provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contributions relief on pension contributions each year. That spend will be entirely unaffected by these changes. These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect lower and middle earners. They give employers many years to prepare. They preserve the incentives that underpin workplace pension saving and they ensure that the tax system is kept on a sustainable footing. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as we said at Second Reading, in Committee and again on Report, this is a poorly conceived Bill, because it prioritises the hope of short-term tax gain over the far more important task of sustaining a system that encourages and rewards responsible pension saving. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have sought to examine it line by line to see what the Government’s policy will actually mean in practice, and what has become clear is deeply troubling.

This measure risks deterring pension savings. It will hit those on lower and middle incomes, including some earning under £30,000 a year. It will impose yet more compliance, payroll and administrative burdens on business, particularly on small businesses and charities that are already under considerable strain. It will particularly penalise those who are repaying student loans.

Against that background, I am proud of the scrutiny that the House has brought to the Bill. Your Lordships have approached it with care, expertise and determination to improve it where we can. As a result, with unusual speed, good order and good humour, the House agreed five amendments last week which seek to limit some of the Bill’s most damaging consequences.

First, our Conservative amendments ensure that basic rate taxpayers, those on the lowest incomes, are protected from the NICs charge. If the Government insist that this policy is directed at higher earners, not those on modest incomes trying to save for their retirement, this should be explicit in the Bill.

Secondly, we proposed an exemption for small and medium-sized enterprises and small charities. These organisations are the backbone of our economy and our communities, and they should not be burdened with yet more payroll, compliance and administrative costs as a result of this policy. We have all seen the impact on them of last year’s £25 billion hit.

Thirdly, we proposed that most of the regulations under the Bill should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Given the uncertainty that surrounds how these provisions will apply, it is only right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise those regulations properly.

Fourthly, my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley successfully secured an amendment to limit the impact of the Bill on those repaying student loans, who would be hardest hit by the measure.

Finally, the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the cap to £5,000, helping to mitigate some of the worst impacts of the Bill on those least able to bear them.

In recognition of the seriousness of the issues raised by the Bill and the progress made here, I shall take a moment to thank a number of noble Lords for the diligence with which they have scrutinised it. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Fuller, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They have worked tirelessly, both with me and my noble friend Lord Altrincham, and their amendments have prompted important debates. I am also grateful to our Whips’ Office team, especially my adviser Oliver Bramley, for their unstinting and effective support, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for the constructive way in which she has engaged with us during the course of the Bill. Hers has been a powerful voice in holding the Government to account.

More broadly, I thank other noble Lords across the House, including the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford, Lord Londesborough and Lord Freyberg, for their thoughtful contributions in scrutinising the legislation. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with the House during the passage of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to him and his officials for their response to the letter I sent following Committee. It addressed a number of the questions raised during our debates and was both timely and informative.

I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, the Government will reflect carefully on the points raised and show a willingness to move on the issues that have united so many across this House.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this was a very short Bill but, frankly, I do not know how it got through the House of Commons and came to this House without clarity on the fundamental issue of whether we were talking about a cap that was per employee or per employment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for seeking the answers to that and making sure we were informed on Report. We were looking at two different Bills, not knowing which one we were working on, until we reached that point in the conversation, so I thank him.

I also join in saying that this was a collaborative effort, not in opposition to the Government but because we were of common mind across the Conservative Benches, my Benches and the Cross Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord de Clifford and Lord Freyberg, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, all played a crucial role in this. I particularly congratulate my Benches on taking a vow of omertà not to speak on many occasions on the Bill so that we moved it rapidly through the House. I think the whole House was grateful that, on Thursday, when we finally came to vote, we were done in less than two hours rather than delaying everyone from departing on a Thursday. I thank my team very much for their discipline. I also thank Ulysse Abbate in our Whips’ office, who is new to this kind of work, but my goodness is he good at content and co-ordination.

This was a good example of people, having realised they are taking the same position, working together to make sure that it is effective. I very much hope that the Commons will appreciate the significance of the amendments passed to the Bill. Of all the Bills I have ever seen, this contains so many unintended consequences that, even if you believed in the fundamentals behind it, you would need to make substantial change for it to be in any way workable and not ending up targeting unintended groups, such as those on basic incomes. It would be devastating for people repaying student loans, which has to be fixed, and very difficult for SMEs. We chose different routes to try to make those changes and ended up with a very solid group of amendments. I thank the House for co-operating on this issue.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I beg to move.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Livermore Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Bill read a third time and passed.

Small Businesses: VAT Threshold

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of HMRC data showing that an increasing number of small businesses in the UK are earning below the VAT tax threshold.

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

My Lords, the data referred to does not show that an increasing number of small businesses in the UK are earning below the VAT threshold. It shows only the number of voluntarily VAT-registered businesses below the VAT registration threshold of £90,000 and does not include unregistered businesses. Of the 5.8 million businesses in the UK, 2.3 million are registered for VAT and 3.5 million are unregistered.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but we have double trouble. First, an increasing number of registered small businesses are earning less than the VAT threshold of £90,000. Secondly, there has been a big drop in those earning £90,000 to £150,000—in fact, there was a decline of 26,000 businesses in the year 2025. Is that because some are deliberately suppressing their growth to avoid the additional tax and admin burden of complying with VAT, or is it because higher employment costs and taxation have choked off their incentive to grow? Either way, it is surely time to reset this threshold.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It is neither of the things that he set out. As I have said, the data cited by the noble Lord relates only to VAT-registered businesses and does not include unregistered businesses, so I do not think it shows what the noble Lord claims that it shows. If a business is already registered for VAT, it has no incentive to suppress turnover to avoid VAT, because it is already charging VAT and would need to continue to do so even below the threshold. Why would they do what the noble Lord suggested? That would not make any sense. If he looks at a longer time series of this data, he will clearly see that it moves around significantly, so the conclusions he is trying to draw are very difficult to sustain.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, if the Minister could open his mind beyond the data of the Question, there is no shortage of studies from very reputable organisations—the IMF, the OECD and others—that there is significant bunching around a threshold, and that is not a surprise. Where they do not agree is whether the brake on growth would be improved by raising or lowering the threshold. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House that the Treasury will not succumb to a Goldilocks effect and conclude that, because some say it should be higher and others say it should be lower, it is happy to leave it where it is? Can he assure us that sensitivity studies are being run to look at where the threshold should be? Getting it right will open up more growth.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very happy to open my mind in response to the noble Lord’s question. The existence of bunching around the VAT threshold is well established and has been analysed by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR has explained that, where a registration threshold exists, some firms will cluster just below it to avoid the administrative and pricing consequences of entering the VAT system. That is an inevitable consequence and recognised feature of a threshold-based tax system. He will know that decisions on tax and thresholds are taken only at fiscal events. Raising the threshold further would reduce burdens for some firms, but it would also carry significant fiscal cost. The UK threshold is already high by international standards. The UK threshold of £90,000 compares to an average in OECD economies of £30,000. It could be argued, as I think the noble Lord is doing, that lowering the threshold could support growth by reducing the distortions created by the cliff edge of the threshold, but the Government are also mindful of the impact this could have on small businesses.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that, according to official statistics, 99.18% of all British businesses are defined as “small”—those with 50 employees or fewer. It sometimes seems, in the answers we get, that the Government have not quite understood that.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I fully understand that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of it. Last year, the Government published their plan for small and medium-sized businesses, setting out support for smaller firms. We are partnering with industry to unlock productivity growth through the adoption of digital technologies. We are legislating to tackle late payments, which cost the UK economy £11 billion a year. We have launched a new Business Growth Service to make it easier to access advice and support. We are making SMEs a national priority in our new procurement policy system. We are expanding the UK Export Finance capacity by £20 billion and creating a small export builder insurance product. I assure the noble Lord that we are very aware of the points he raises.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, are the Government concerned about what seems to be the growth of cash-only businesses? They are not there for the customers’ benefit but, in some cases, for the business to avoid tax and other things.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, absolutely, the Government are very aware of the points that my noble friend raises. HMRC has recently engaged in increased enforcement activity around those exact points.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The Minister will be aware of the successful campaign that Retailers Against VAT Abuse Schemes and I ran to ensure that online marketplaces are required to collect VAT on certain transactions involving non-UK established sellers. The problem is that the current system has been exploited by proxy directors, proxy companies and artificial fragmentation. The chairman of the British Independent Retailers Association has written to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to ask for urgent consultation on this issue, which is probably costing HM Treasury £700 million a year. Can the Minister use his influence in HM Treasury to ensure that urgent consultation takes place immediately with the retailers who signed that letter?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his campaigning work and raising this with me on a number of occasions. He knows that we are reviewing the online marketplace rules established under the previous Government. As part of that review, those consultations will take place. I will bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, to make sure that he consults with the businesses that the noble Lord mentioned.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, for many small businesses, the VAT threshold is only one part of a much wider cumulative burden, which includes rising national insurance contributions, business rates and minimum wage pressures, and the increasing complexity of employment regulation. That all hits enterprise and dampens the ambition and animal spirits that we need to get this country growing. Does the Minister therefore see a case for lifting this and other thresholds, and for exempting SMEs from some of the ever-growing burden of regulations that we are seeing? If so, where would he start?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

In a previous answer, I discussed the issues surrounding changing the threshold. The noble Baroness may know that the Windsor Framework imposes an upper limit of just over £90,000 on the threshold in Northern Ireland. The Windsor Framework is relevant by extension to the Government’s decisions in Great Britain too, so there are limitations to what we can do. She talked about the other decisions that the Government have taken, which she has consistently opposed—for example, raising the minimum wage. However, it is only because of these decisions that the Chancellor was able to tell Parliament, the day before yesterday, that living standards are now rising, having fallen under the previous Government, and that by the next election people will be £1,000 a year better off.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, small businesses are the key driver for creating jobs and employment. Can the Minister confirm that unemployment is now 5.6%—higher than during the Covid pandemic—while youth unemployment is 15.9%? What is going wrong? The Minister spent 18 months blaming the £22 billion black hole and everyone from Liz Truss to Boris—he even blamed the Tories for repealing the corn laws. When will he take responsibility for what is going wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is a little rich for the party opposite to ask anyone else to take responsibility after the 14 years they inflicted on this country. Last week’s labour market statistics show that there are 381,000 more people in work since the start of 2025. Of course there is more to do. However, the updated forecast from the OBR this week shows that unemployment will peak later this year before falling for every remaining year of the Parliament, ending lower at the end of the Parliament than it was at the beginning—the rate that we inherited from the noble Lord’s Government.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

That is the 322nd time that noble Lords opposite have used the phrase “14 years”. Will they please listen to Sir Tony Blair, who said this week:

“Labour’s policies are harming growth and undermining young people’s job prospects”?


Does the Minister agree with Sir Keir Starmer, who said of the previous Government that they were lurching

“from crisis to crisis and U-turn to U-turn … To correct one error, even two, might make sense. But when they’ve notched up 12 U-turns and rising, the only conclusion is serial incompetence”?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Well, that was a most enjoyable question from the noble Earl. I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the last Government’s 14 years in power. We had austerity, followed by Brexit, followed by Liz Truss. The growth record of the previous Government was an absolute catastrophe. He will know from the forecast presented to Parliament this week that growth has been increased for next year and the year after. That is only possible because of the stability that we have brought about. Borrowing will be £18 billion lower over this Parliament. It will fall every year of the forecast and will be below the G7 average for the first time—something that the previous Government did not achieve in 14 years. It is only because of those decisions that we are seeing the stability and growth of this economy, decisions that the party opposed at every turn.

Duty Relief Exemption: Small Parcels

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the new tax on small parcels entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain as a result of the EU’s change to the duty relief exemption.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to the smooth flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. The Government are aware of the EU’s plans to remove its relief for low-value imports from 1 July 2026. The facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by this change, meaning that goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland can continue to move under the UK Carrier Scheme and the UK Internal Market Scheme without the need to pay duty.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. Responding recently to two questions from me and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, he said that we would continue to engage with the EU. Now that the regulations have been published just two weeks ago—written in the normal EU way that is quite difficult to understand, but I am sure the Minister does—can he clarify for us whether the new rules will operate subject to EU regulation 2023/1128 such that any trusted trader on the UK Internal Market Scheme need not pay any duty? Can he also clarify whether the duty will be paid by the person sending the parcel in GB, the person receiving the parcel in Northern Ireland or both? Does he agree that we need detailed clarification on this? People are very worried about it—maybe wrongly, maybe rightly. Will the Minister make sure that there is clarification on exactly how this is going to work and how it will affect people in Great Britain sending parcels to their relatives in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I can give the noble Baroness the clarification she seeks. The answer to the first question she asked is yes. As I said in my opening Answer, in May last year the Government introduced important new arrangements for freight and parcel movements to ensure that goods can continue to move smoothly from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. These facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by the EU’s change to its duty relief exemption. Goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland can continue to move under the UK Carrier Scheme and the UK Internal Market Scheme without the need to pay duty.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his detailed and clear response. Does he agree that one should be very careful about what you argue and campaign for, because sometimes you get what you want? Does he agree that those who argued for the hardest possible Brexit got the Windsor Framework? I agree with that.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that back in 2016, Sir John Major and Sir Tony Blair very clearly said that Brexit will present very specific challenges for Northern Ireland, given its land border with an EU member state and the importance of safeguarding the Good Friday agreement. Unfortunately, many of those concerns were dismissed, but now that the reality of Brexit does not match up to the fantasy version that other people imagined, they seek to blame others for the consequences of their own actions. My noble friend is equally right, though, that the Windsor Framework is the best possible solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be pleasantly surprised to hear that I agree with him: the GB-NI movement of goods is covered by Article 5 of the Windsor agreement. The issue is about the movement of goods into Northern Ireland post 5 July, when the EU rules change. Can he clarify whether the €3 charge and the €2 handling charge will be applied from 1 July, and will that money go to the EU, not the UK? Furthermore, can he explain why France and Italy are bringing in these changes now, and the UK is having to wait until 2029 to implement this revenue-generating initiative?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I can. The noble Lord asks about goods sent from the rest of the world; the EU has only just published its legislation—sorry, it was the EU handling fee that he asks about. Although the EU has published its legislation relating to the matters I was describing previously, it has not yet published its legislation relating to the EU handling fee. We are obviously aware that the EU is considering plans to introduce a handling fee for every consumer parcel imported by November this year. It has not yet finalised its plans or published final legislation, so we have not yet carried out an assessment of its implications at this point.

The noble Lord also asks about our own reforms, which I know he has championed for many years. As he knows, the Chancellor announced at the previous Budget that the Government will remove low-value import relief by March 2029 at the latest, but it is important that we consult on those arrangements and how they will affect retailers. That consultation will close next month, on 6 March.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has already agreed with our view that this situation is really caused by the appalling nature of the deal that the Conservative Party negotiated on Brexit. Does he also agree that it demonstrates that the rapid agreement of a customs union and other alignments with the EU would not only have huge financial benefits to the United Kingdom but smooth out issues like this that were caused by those in Northern Ireland who advocated for Brexit in the first place?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that I absolutely agree with his analysis of the problem, and I greatly admire the consistency with which he has pursued his policy for a customs union. The points he makes are obviously factually correct. This Government are pursuing an EU reset. The UK and the EU have agreed to negotiate an SPS agreement, which aims to significantly reduce barriers to trade in agri-food goods, support simplified movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the EU, and boost our exports. Negotiations that we are taking forward on electricity and emissions trading will have a similar effect on businesses trading with Northern Ireland and the EU.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for the answers that he has given thus far. He mentioned the EU reset negotiations. Can he tell us whether this issue is part of those negotiations and, more generally, what the timetable is for the outcome of the negotiations? Is the pursuit of free, untrammelled internal trade within the United Kingdom something that he and other Government Ministers have at the forefront of their consideration, given that the current restrictions are doing enormous damage to business and consumer confidence in Northern Ireland, as illustrated in the recent report by the Federation of Small Businesses, which I urge every Member of this House to read in detail?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, what is ultimately at stake here is the stability of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. The EU, to its credit, stretched itself in the lead-in to the Windsor Framework, opening negotiations with the Truss and Sunak Governments. A moment was reached that allowed the Windsor Framework to be part of that process and to return the functions of the institutions. Since then, the EU seems to have returned slightly to its older ways—a series of interventions that are causing destabilisation and strengthening the forces in Northern Ireland that are politically opposed to the Good Friday agreement. In dealing with the EU, will the Minister please make it clear that the survival of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement is fundamental, and that actions that strengthen the support of those hostile to the Good Friday agreement should be avoided at all costs?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Absolutely. We are fully committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. The Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. We will work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, businesses, political parties and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve this aim, taking into account the implementation deadlines.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have begun Committee by addressing this issue and grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who seemed to be saying—I think with support from outside bodies—that the Treasury’s financial estimates were over-optimistic. That may, of course, be true of the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has kindly given us, which we will obviously need to have a look at, on the effect of the change.

The difficulty as I see it is that the policy remains vague. Its impacts are largely unknown and the income group it is intended to capture is undefined. The Treasury’s assessment of how it will operate in practice has been inadequate. It is a complex mechanism by which to raise a relatively modest amount of revenue and does not take effect until 2029. It is a tool, if not a very sensible one, designed to make the Chancellor’s sums add up, rather than a longer-term policy. Even if the Government succeed in raising anything like the figure set out in the Treasury note, the projected yield declines sharply within just a few years of implementation.

There is also an issue of definition. I think the potential cost is greater. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, there is a risk that middle and lower-income workers, and those paying basic rates of tax, will be drawn into scope. After all, this is a dynamic situation—we will come on to discuss whether there are ways of tackling that—but it could have serious consequences, and we would need to come back to the point about pension saving, long-term adequacy and, ultimately, future liabilities for the state. There is also an issue about irregular payments—“bonuses” was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The majority of bonuses, in my experience, are small, as I know from my time at Tesco, but they can be used usefully to invest in pensions.

The absence of any safeguard in the Bill to prevent basic rate taxpayers being captured is a significant omission. If the Government are confident that such individuals will be protected, they should be willing to put that protection in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, rightly supported the need for transparency, and of course Amendment 2, which requires Ministers to define “higher earners”, would achieve just that. Even the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, agreed that there was a “kink in the line”.

Her Majesty’s Opposition are very concerned about the unfair impact on those struggling to pay their student loans at a rate of interest which is impossible to justify. The Government must look seriously at how to mitigate this, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley explained with his customary vim, and to do this in the Bill—not promise to do something elsewhere. This is a big issue that has been raised and it has to be solved. We are very sympathetic to those with big debts, which they will have to pay off under the loans scheme, so a way needs to be found to help them.

There is an ambiguity, as my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough said from his position as a tax expert, and we need to listen to him. He also warned of its damaging implications, on top of those already introduced for IHT on pensions. This is part of a wider attack on pensions which it is important to do something about if we are to tackle the problems of long-term pension sustainability.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I may need to come back to this on Report, as it is at the heart of the acceptability of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak first to the amendments in this group that stand in my name and then to those tabled by my noble friends. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, helpfully outlined a list of banana skins or uncertainties from her experience, such as the cost of changes in employment contracts and payroll software and of dealing with employees concerned about the change. She was right to ask whether we need to legislate so rapidly given the complexities that seem to be thrown up by today’s useful debate.

My amendments, Amendments 5 and 18, helpfully supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, chiefly concern the principle of parliamentary oversight. Nothing is more central to our work. Under Clauses 1 and 2, the Bill quite properly provides that regulations reducing the £2,000 contributions limit must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is right. If the Treasury lowers the cap, Parliament must be given the final say. What the Bill does not provide is affirmative scrutiny where the Treasury alters the methodology by which the cap is calculated or applied. That omission is significant because new subsections (6C) and (6D) do not deal with minor technical points but determine how the policy will operate in practice for thousands of earners whose pay patterns do not fit a neat monthly model.

Let us look at new subsection (6C). It permits regulations to prescribe an equivalent contributions limit for those paid weekly or at other intervals. That phrase “other intervals” is remarkably broad. It covers shift workers, contractors, seasonal workers, gig economy participants, those on irregular pay cycles and those with multiple employments. People in these forms of employment make up a large and growing segment of the modern labour market, yet the detail of how the limit will be translated for those individuals is not in the Bill. It is left entirely to regulations and consultation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. The annual cap is scrutinised in primary legislation, but, inconsistently, the translation of that cap into weekly, irregular or non-standard pay structures, the arrangements when an employee moves and other detail of importance to both workers and those operating payrolls, are to be set out later in regulations without the same degree of parliamentary approval. These points can be material in terms of compliance costs and fairness. In other words, those whose circumstances fit most neatly within the annual framework benefit from full parliamentary scrutiny, while those whose pay patterns are more complex do not. We submit that if the methodology by which the cap is applied to those workers is altered in a way that materially changes who pays and how much, that is a policy decision and one which requires greater scrutiny from your Lordships’ House and the other place.

The same concerns arise under new subsection (6D). There, the Treasury is given powers to determine by regulation when amounts treated as remuneration are deemed to be paid, in prescribed cases to treat a figure other than the amount foregone as remuneration and to calculate that alternative figure in such manner and on such basis as may be prescribed. These are extremely broad powers. They allow the Treasury not merely to administer the cap but to redefine how remuneration is attributed and calculated for NICs purposes. If such methodological changes can be made without returning to Parliament for affirmative approval, the House will have ceded oversight of important mechanisms that determine the real-world effect of this new policy.

My amendments simply make the point that where the method by which the contributions limit is calculated or applied is altered, Parliament should have the opportunity to approve the change. The Committee is currently scrutinising the Bill line by line. We are examining the consequences. It would be inconsistent if, once enacted, substantial changes could be introduced through regulations subject only to the negative procedure. If the Government are confident that any such changes would be technical and uncontroversial, they should have no objection to subjecting them to affirmative scrutiny.

These provisions will affect real employers and real employees. They will determine compliance burdens, payroll calculations and the effective tax treatment of pension saving. They are not trivial matters. In short, where the substance of the policy shifts, Parliament should be asked to approve that shift. I hope the Minister will recognise that this is a sound and serious constitutional point and give it proper consideration.

Amendments 4 and 17, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, make an interesting case. The Government’s policy intent, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, is to apply a national insurance change where pension contributions are made pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements—in other words, where an employee has chosen to forgo cash pay in return for an employer pension contribution. However, there are some workplace pension arrangements where no such option exists: the employee is not offered a cash alternative, there is no choice between salary and pension, and the employer contribution is simply part of the structured remuneration package.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how the arrangements can properly be described as optional. There is no alternative compensation available and there is no optionality. The amendment therefore makes clear that where no cash alternative is offered, the arrangement should not be treated as an optional remuneration arrangement for the purposes of the new NICs charges. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether arrangements with no genuine cash alternative are intended to fall within the scope of the Bill. If not, I hope he might look favourably on this clarification.

My noble friend Lord Leigh’s Amendment 33 makes a further important point that the Bill should not come into force until the Treasury has published clear guidance setting out how the contributions limit will apply in cases of multiple concurrent employments. This is a matter of basic administrative clarity and fairness. The question about two caps for two jobs came from my noble friend himself, and it would be interesting to know the answer.

My noble friend Lord Mackinlay doubts whether guidance is the right route, and wants to know what the arrangements will be today, with amendments to the Bill if we believe—in the light of the answers—that that is needed. We certainly need clarity, a change to the scrutiny of regulations to the affirmative, and perhaps guidance when we have the answers.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 4A in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. As drafted, the Bill introduces a flat £2,000 annual limit, above which salary sacrifice to employer pensions will attract national insurance. It is a hard cap. But real earnings do not operate in neat annual instalments; for many people, remuneration fluctuates significantly from year to year. Without any carry-forward mechanism of the kind well articulated by my noble friend Lord Mackinlay, which is apparently not very costly, the Bill creates a cliff edge. An individual who sacrifices modestly for several years but has a single high-earning year will be treated as if that year existed in isolation. That is not how pension saving works elsewhere in the tax system.

The pensions annual allowance regime already provides a three-year forward framework. Amendments 4B and 17B would align the national insurance treatment with that established precedent. The alternative amendments, Amendments 4A and 17A, simply provide the Treasury with a permissive power to introduce such a mechanism. They offer flexibility should Ministers be concerned about immediate fiscal implications.

Amendment 29A would require an independent review within 18 months of implementation. The Bill introduces a new compliance framework affecting payroll systems, remuneration design and pension planning. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that Parliament should require evidence of its real-world impact, particularly on fluctuating earners and on employer administrative burdens. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that the extra burden of complexity on employers can be dismissed, particularly now we have heard that currently there is so little interaction between second and third employers. We want fewer burdens, not more. Enough is enough, and I look forward to a proper and detailed response on these very important technical points.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I begin by addressing Amendments 4 and 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. These amendments relate to the technical and operational detail of the legislation, including the definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” and procedure. I fully understand the concern underlying them, which is to ensure that the Bill operates in a targeted, proportionate way and does not inadvertently affect ordinary employer pension contributions. The Government share this objective and I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify our intent.

The Bill before the Committee already relies on the established definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” set out in the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003; this is the same framework that has applied since the optional remuneration arrangement rules were introduced in 2017. Under that definition, the rules apply only where an employee is given a choice—for example, a choice between receiving earnings or receiving employer pension contributions instead. This includes salary sacrifice arrangements, where an employee agrees to a lower cash salary in exchange for a pension contribution, or situations where an employee chooses pension contributions in place of a cash allowance.

Importantly, the Bill does not affect employer pension contributions where no such choice exists. Where an employer makes pension contributions as a standard part of the remuneration package and there is no alternative of cash or earnings available to the employee, those arrangements do not fall within the definition of “optional remuneration arrangements” and are, therefore, outside the scope of the Bill. In those cases, standard employer pension contributions will continue to be fully exempt from national insurance contributions, exactly as they are now. Nothing in this legislation changes that position.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

May I ask for some clarification? The Government’s intention is to try to encourage higher pension contributions. If an employer decides to increase their pension contributions, how would one know that that had not been at the expense of some salary they might otherwise have paid? Would it just never be caught? Can we safely assume that increased employer pension contributions will not be caught unless there is some official paper that says, “This was instead of salary”?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I suppose I would ask the noble Baroness: who does she mean when she asks, “How would one know”? Who is “one” in that instance? HMRC? That would be reported to HMRC, would it not?

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

HMRC.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

As what? It would just be an increase in pension contributions because the employer has decided to increase the amount they will provide for their staff from, say, 6% to 8%. It is nothing to do with what they are paying the staff; it is not the result of negotiation. Their standard contribution was 6% and is, perhaps, going to 8%. Some people might be concerned that that would be considered by HMRC as an optional arrangement because the pensioning contribution has gone up, although that may not have been intended. The Government’s intention is, I hope, to get employer contributions to increase.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The example given by the noble Baroness is not a salary-sacrificed pension contribution. What she is describing is exactly what you would want to happen. Surely you want the pension contribution to go from 6% to 8%.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Yes, absolutely.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not understand where the problem is, because that is a good thing.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

The issue is that there seems to be a risk. Can we somehow—I am not quite clear how—clarify in the Bill in case HMRC might decide that that is caught by the Bill?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am happy to take this away and look at it, but I cannot see any way in which that would be the situation. Employers presumably increase their pension contributions all the time. That is a good public policy outcome. There is no way in which that would be caught by these regulations. I have made that extremely clear in what I am saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is a perfectly good outcome if the employer increases their contribution into an employee’s pension. That is something we want to achieve. On specifically how HMRC would view that, I am very happy to take that away, but I do not believe in any way, in what I am saying, that that is the intention of what we are doing.

I will finish what I was saying. In those cases, standard employer pension contributions will continue to be fully exempt from national insurance contributions, exactly as they are now. Nothing in this legislation changes that position. For these reasons, the Bill already draws the correct boundary by relying on a well-established and familiar legal definition. It targets only those arrangements where an employee is given a choice between cash and pension provision, and it does not interfere with ordinary, non-optional employer pension contributions.

I turn to Amendments 5 and 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. These amendments relate to parliamentary scrutiny and procedure. I agree with noble Lords about the importance of maintaining strong parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where changes could affect individuals’ national insurance liabilities. That is an important principle and one that the Government share. That is why the Bill contains a series of safeguards to protect scrutiny and transparency.

The Bill explicitly provides that, where regulations are used to reduce the generosity of the £2,000 limit—that is, where changes would lower the contribution limit and thereby increase the amount of earnings subject to class 1 national insurance contributions—those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure. This ensures that any change which tightens the policy or increases liability is brought before Parliament for full scrutiny and approval.

By contrast, where regulations are made simply to implement the policy, to set out administrative arrangements or to increase the £2,000 limit, thereby resulting in less national insurance being payable, it is standard practice for those regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. That approach reflects the well-established distinction between substantive policy changes and regulations which deal with administration or confer additional relief.

This is not a new or novel approach. It follows the established precedent for regulations made under the existing powers in Section 4(6) and Section 4A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. In those cases, regulations of an administrative or beneficial nature have routinely been subject to the negative procedure.

I also note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has carefully scrutinised the powers in the Bill, including the proposed level of parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee has confirmed that there is nothing in the Bill that it wished to draw to the special attention of the House.

Taken together, these provisions ensure an appropriate and proportionate balance: robust parliamentary oversight where the policy is made less generous, and a well-established, efficient procedure for setting out administrative detail and making changes that operate in favour of contributors.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, would he consider making an affirmative regulation on the very first occasion? The discussions that we have had this evening show that there is quite a bit of complexity here, and that has compliance costs for employers and employees. It seems odd to take the precedent of the social security Act on something new and difficult. I wonder whether that would be worth considering. Perhaps the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not have the benefit of the experts here who have explained some of the problems. I am sure the Minister cannot say anything today, but could he at least have a look at whether the first such regulations could be by affirmative resolution, which is a practice that I have encountered with lots of other Bills that we probably worked on together?

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Can we just let the Minister reply to that?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I have set out very clearly which will be approached with the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure, and I do not think it is our intention to deviate from that very clear precedent.

Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, relates to the operability of the contributions limit for those with multiple concurrent jobs. Amendments 4A, 4B, 17A, 17B and 29A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also relate to operability of the contributions limit, with a focus on those with fluctuating earnings and their employers.

I fully understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised about how this measure will operate in practice, particularly for those with more complex employment arrangements and irregular patterns of remuneration. While the Bill provides the necessary powers, the full operational detail of the £2,000 cap will be set out in regulations that are yet to be published. The purpose of this two-stage process is to ensure that when the cap is introduced, it operates effectively across a wide range of real-world circumstances, including for individuals with multiple jobs, complex payroll arrangements, changing employment or fluctuating remuneration patterns over the course of a year.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

Is the Minister’s understanding of the Bill that the £2,000 threshold will be in the entirety of a single employee or across each employment? At the moment, with NI regulations the employee benefits from different thresholds in each employment that is held. That means that with less than £12,570 in each multiple employment no employee national insurance is paid at all. Is the intention for it to be £2,000 in total across any number of employments, or £2,000 per employment?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That intention will be set out in the regulations once we have fully consulted relevant employers.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

There is a transfer of risk, of prejudice, from the individual, who is responsible under the current arrangements, to the employer. That has not been fleshed out at all. If you have a salary sacrifice that is processed by the employer, all of a sudden that employer trespasses on the duty at the end of the tax year for the employee to put in his tax return. There has been a muddying of the water here between the employee and the employer. I know we are going to come back on Report, and I hope we will get it done in a day, but the Government should lay out their approach to this and state where the liability sits and where the penalties may be applied for honest mistakes made in that interface between the employer and the employee. That is not at all clear, and it should be.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his further thoughts. The carryover feature—

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I do not want to be problematic here, but I wonder whether the Minister can understand that we are looking at a very different Bill and very different implications if the £2,000 contribution limit is per individual across a range of employments, or per job, and perhaps they have three or four. It is a fundamental difference, and while the details of how things would be done in the future and the operational issues may well have to wait for regulation, guidance and consultation, it seems to me that that core issue defines this Bill, and we should know that before we complete its passage.

[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.

--- 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.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, as many noble Lords have made clear in their remarks on this group, the policy as currently drafted operates as a rather untargeted tax. Introducing indexation by RPI or CPI—described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as the goose and gander amendment—would be a straightforward and proportionate step that the Government could take now to mitigate what I can only assume is an unintended consequence. We on these Benches would also support the higher limits proposed by noble Lords and noble Baronesses today to mitigate behavioural changes that may undermine the objectives of this initiative or the Bill entirely.

The Minister has heard a range of constructive proposals this afternoon as to how this issue might be addressed. I very much hope he has listened carefully to the strength of feeling across the Committee and that he will give serious consideration to adopting one of these solutions. I beg to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, as we discussed at Second Reading, the Federation of Small Businesses has warned that the impact of the Bill could meaningfully disadvantage small businesses. In a way, I look at social enterprises and charities as, essentially, a subset of the SME sector. Big businesses can often devise ways and perks to reward people that are simply not available to SMEs, so they can dampen the impact of the Bill on their workforces and widen that competitive gap.

As a consequence of that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for signing Amendment 27 in my name, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for saying that he would have signed it. Frankly, when these noble Lords give warnings on what will happen and what is happening in the small business sector, I really hope that the Government are listening because, unfortunately for our economy, their track record has a real history of being correct, and those warnings need to be taken seriously.

As other noble Lords have said, SMEs are already under pressure. I am not going to repeat the saga of the burdens on them, but we have to recognise that this is a time when we absolutely need small businesses to accelerate their hiring, especially of young people, and make serious investment in productivity and growth. Once again, this is another measure where I can see no alignment between the Bill and the Government’s industrial strategy or growth policy. It seems to pull in completely the wrong direction.

Amendments 12 and 24 would straightforwardly exempt SMEs. Amendment 27 in my name would give the Government a chance to make their case, in a sense, because it would require a detailed review within 12 months of the Act being signed, which is obviously long before the Act will come into force. The review would target the two issues that we have said are so critical—SME recruitment and retention—and would also look at this matter in the context of the cumulative impact, particularly of NICs changes since this is a NICs Bill. It seems wise to encompass a look at these two NICs changes as being linked and entangled in the way they impact on small businesses.

I do not want to take up much more of the Committee’s time, but it is important to stress that this is not the time for uninformed decision-making; that has been echoed through group after group of amendments. I am not rejecting the other amendments but Amendment 27 would be a relatively modest way for the Government at least to do something that begins to put evidence before Ministers and Parliament.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. First, I will address Amendments 18 and 24 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which would exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises from the Bill.

The Government agree on the importance of supporting small businesses and ensuring that they are not unduly impacted by these changes. Small and medium-sized enterprises are far less likely to offer pension salary sacrifice than larger businesses. According to Nest Insight, around 33% of small businesses offer pension salary sacrifice to their employees, compared with 83% of large businesses. In addition, employees of small and medium-sized enterprises are far less likely to have contributions exceeding the £2,000 cap; only 10% of employees in SMEs have pension contributions through salary sacrifice exceeding the cap. Exempting small and medium-sized enterprises in the way suggested by the amendment would therefore introduce significant additional complexity into the tax system and would be disproportionate given the limited impact that this policy is expected to have on these businesses. The Government are engaging with employers and other industry stakeholders ahead of these changes coming in.

Similarly, Amendments 26 and 27 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, would require a review of the impact of the Act on small and medium-sized enterprises. As I have already said, the Government agree about the importance of supporting small businesses. The changes in the Bill will mainly impact larger employers, which are much more likely to use salary sacrifice and to have employees who are contributing above the £2,000 cap.

More widely, the Government are delivering the most comprehensive package of support for small and medium-sized businesses in a generation through the small business strategy, unlocking billions of pounds in finance to support businesses to invest and removing unnecessary red tape. Ahead of the cap coming into operation, the Government will continue to work closely with employers, payroll administrators and other stakeholders to ensure that the changes are implemented in the least burdensome way for businesses of all sizes currently using salary sacrifice.

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government truly wish to support SMEs and charities, they should not press ahead with a measure that those enterprises have told us—I gave a great deal of evidence, and we have heard this from others as well—will damage them, increase their operating costs and complexity and reduce their ability to offer options to their employees. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, put the case well.

The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, with his unique experience of SME businesses, reminded us of the dire situation facing SMEs, with significant numbers closing down, as one can see on almost any high street. My noble friend Lord Ashcombe emphasised the cumulative effect and rightly added energy prices to the problems that SMEs and charities are facing. The Bill will raise employment costs at a time when companies are already stretched to boiling point.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, illustrated the problem with information drawn from the impact of NICs on his business, which I found particularly compelling. He is very keen to have the hope—I think that is the right word—that will arise from the proposed review. My noble friend Lord Mackinlay reminded us of the large number of NEETs who are out of work, as well as of how we now have higher youth unemployment than the EU, generating what he referred to as a tipping point.

My noble friend rightly raised—I hope that the Minister will come back on this—the key unanswered question of whether the £2,000 cap will apply per employee across multiple employments. We must have an answer on that because it will make a great deal of difference, especially to smaller operations. I am impressed by the fact that, for the first time, my noble friend has agreed to support a carve-out for SMEs and charities, on which I have campaigned for the past 11 years.

The Minister and I have often exchanged views on SMEs, but this is an opportunity for him to make a concrete change to the Government’s policy on this matter, do something to show that the Government listen to SMEs and small social enterprises and provide them with a bit of relief from the mountain of complexities piled on them. I urge the Government to think again and make a positive change to the Bill in this area. It would not be expensive, but it would protect jobs and businesses, help our economy and, above all, reduce compliance costs for both this vital sector and the officials who are taxed with policing the changes and gathering revenue.

Lastly, I reiterate my support for the review of SME recruitment and retention proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in the light of the cumulative NICs changes that we have seen over the past 18 months. Like her, I hope that the Government are listening. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will, I think, want to revert to the position of SMEs and charities when we come back on Report later in the spring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She has just summed up a lot of my issues, so I will keep this brief because it is late.

I will come from the perspective of one limited experience: my business. The success of auto-enrolment is fantastic, and the salary sacrifice scheme has really helped. I have 18 and 19 year-olds saving for a pension; it is only small amounts, but it really helps them. The other thing is that those who are slightly better paid find it so easy to increase their pension contributions and then pull them down again when they need their funds. I believe this Bill will be a disincentive to those people who are trying to save a bit more.

Therefore, I support this amendment, which seeks to check that we do not lose the advantages that auto-enrolment has brought to SMEs and has forced employers like me—I think back when we instigated ours—to bring in pension schemes. There is real value to that. The experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in pensions is a lot greater than mine, so I welcome a review, especially an independent one. It is so important that we start saving for our pensions. My noble friend Lord Londesborough came up with some statistics earlier and the report from his committee is important.

Those are the reasons why I support this amendment. It is essential that we continue to review how people save for their pensions.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.

I turn first to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which seeks the publication of illustrative projections of lifetime pension saving values before and after this change. The Government do not agree that this amendment is necessary to provide the required information on personal pension saving outcomes. The impacts of the measures in the Bill, including on employees and employers, are already set out in the tax information and impact note published alongside the Bill’s introduction.

Additionally, the Government published a policy costing note, which includes detail on the tax base and static costing as well as a summary of the behavioural responses expected by individuals and employers. The Office for Budget Responsibility has set out impacts in its economic and fiscal outlook, making it clear that it does not expect a material impact on savings behaviour as a result of the tax changes made in the Budget. Similarly, there are already a number of existing tools and services that individuals can use to understand their personal financial position and estimate their potential retirement income.

Amendments 29 and 30, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord de Clifford, would require the Government to take advice examining the impact of this change on employers, pension adequacy and workers’ pay. They also seek to make commencement of the Act conditional on the publication of an independent review of its effects, including on pension adequacy. The impacts of this measure have already been set out across the range of usual publications for changes to national insurance; these include the published tax information and impact note and policy costings note, as well as the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook.

These amendments raise a wider point about the role of salary sacrifice in the pension salary saving system, particularly in relation to incentivising saving and improving pension adequacy. It is important to place this measure in context. Salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet, during this period, there were falls in private sector pension saving. The key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years, as many noble Lords have noted in this debate, is automatic enrolment. As a result of automatic enrolment, more than 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.

Although all of us here share a commitment to improving pension adequacy, many groups at higher risk of under-saving—including the self-employed, low earners and women—are not the most likely to benefit from salary sacrifice. Only one in five self-employed people save into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but higher earners are more likely to be using salary sacrifice. Many women are under-saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.

The pensions tax relief system remains hugely generous, and there remain significant incentives to save into a pension. The £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief that the Government currently provide on pensions each year will be entirely unaffected by these changes.

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

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

I will very briefly add one question about the OBR forecast. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said at Second Reading that she found the timing “weird”. I certainly find it extraordinary that we have a five-year forecast of which the first three years are irrelevant—they are zero—and then we have a 48% fall in the second year. This begs the question: where are the forecasts for years three, four and five? If we are following this trend, we have a fireworks display. As the noble Lord, Lord Altrinchan, said, the Government should not be indulging in short-term fiscal levers. Where are the forecasts for those years? These measures do not actually come into effect until the financial year 2030.

[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.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—a shorter debate than we probably needed—and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for drawing out so clearly the scale of the uncertainty that we are facing here.

The Minister has referred to various costings and has described them as conventional, but the truth is that the tax impact notes that have been published are inadequate, as indeed were parallel information notes published last year when we were discussing the national insurance changes of £25 billion. As a result, the consequences we are now seeing in the economy were not, to my mind, adequately flagged up.

However, where a policy is acknowledged by the OBR to carry medium to high uncertainty, and where almost half of the projected yield depends on a behavioural response that is not known in advance, I think the data that we have is incomplete. It is therefore reasonable to pause and require an independent assessment, and we have time for that. The alternative is that the Government legislate blind and then ignore the impact of the measures they take, as they did last year. In this case, of course, it will be a long time before we know the impact, because the measures will come into play in 2029-30.

In matters of pension saving and employment costs, stability and predictability are essential. If the Government are confident in their policy, they should have nothing to fear from the independent scrutiny that we have proposed. But time is late; we have reached the witching hour, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 January be approved.

Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 10 February.

Motion agreed.