National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Londesborough and Lord Ashcombe

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

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

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

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

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Londesborough and Lord Ashcombe

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly support this group of amendments and, in particular, Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. My noble friend Lord Vaux’s more straightforward Amendment 50 would reduce the length of the qualifying period from two years to a minimum of six months, during which an employee may not claim unfair dismissal.

I am happy to agree with the Government that the current two-year period for effective probation, from my experience as an employer, is excessively long and merits revision. Like others, I understand that the Government are consulting on the length of the IPE, the initial period of employment, and that nine months is being suggested. However, given that most permanent employees have a formal annual review at 12 months, during which their remuneration and performance are reviewed, I think it is fair and transparent that the 12-month review also represents the end of the probationary or qualifying period. That provides clarity to both sides and, I believe, is sufficient time for the employer to assess the employee’s performance, competence and cultural fit.

I accept that, in the majority of cases, performance issues during probation surface within the first six months. A proactive employer should then step in to either articulate a performance improvement plan for the next six months, with clear markers and milestones, or come to an early conclusion that this is not going to work out and move on to dismissal. But if we overly squeeze the probationary period, we will deter employers, particularly entrepreneurs, from the creation of new jobs by reducing their appetite to take a risk on new recruits, as we have heard, which is surely not what the Government intend.

Clause 23 and Schedule 3 threaten to be a real menace for two groups of employer in particular. The first, as we have heard, is those sectors with naturally high staff attrition rates given the nature of their business, such as retail and hospitality. The second, perhaps less obviously, is those businesses that rely on particular job functions that carry higher risk and performance requirements, in particular sales, marketing and business development jobs that run across so many of our economy’s key sectors: everything from sales on the floor, in the park or in the kiosk, and, yes, telesales—which we all try to avoid—to those involved in B2B business development and client account management. I know from personal experience in advising start-ups and scale-ups that these are critical, revenue-generating roles with strong personal performance criteria where much of the remuneration comes—quite correctly—in the form of performance-related pay. We will do real damage to productivity and economic growth if we do not allow fair and proper time for assessment of these types of roles without the threat of unfair dismissal hanging over employers’ heads prematurely. That said, I will support Amendment 49 if it is put to the vote.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, as well as those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Throughout our debates, one thing has become clear: Clause 23 is one of the more troubling areas for the business community and therefore potential employees. That concern is reflected not just in what we have heard in this Chamber but in the Government’s own impact assessment.

When a company hires someone new, it takes a risk. No matter how impressive someone’s CV may be or how well they come across in interview, things do not always work out, as we have heard. That is why probation periods exist. They give both the employer and the employee a chance to assess whether it is the right fit. I have seen this at first hand in my own company, Marsh Ltd. For small businesses in particular, hiring someone new, especially during a period of growth, can be a major financial and operational commitment. When things do not work out, the company should not be left to carry all the burden because of a mismatch that is no one’s fault. Introducing a day-one right to claim unfair dismissal outside the already established exceptions places a heavy weight on employers. It could discourage them from hiring altogether. Worse still, it may lead to pressure being placed on existing staff, who are asked to do more because their employers are hesitant to take on new people.

In the Financial Times, the Chancellor said an excessive safety-first approach was not seen in any of Britain’s global competitors, adding:

“It is bad for businesses, bad for growth and bad for working people”—


a description of this Bill and Clause 23 in particular. These amendments offer a sensible middle ground. They would reduce the current qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection from two years to six months. That strikes me as fair and proportionate. It matches the length of the probation period used in many companies, and certainly in the one I work for. Six months should be enough time to determine whether someone is right for the role. These amendments would make it better for business, better for growth and better for working people. That is why I support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to these amendments, to which I have added by name. What we are dealing with here is a basic question of fairness. Currently, the law recognises the importance of accompaniment at disciplinary and grievance hearings, yet it narrowly limits who that companion can be. Unless an employee has a supportive colleague or is a trade union member, they face these often-daunting proceedings alone. This creates a two-tier system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. How can it be right that two workers in the same workplace facing the same process are given different statutory rights based solely on their union membership?

This is not a hypothetical issue. In reality, 78% of UK workers are not in a trade union, which means most cannot count on the support of a trained companion in these hearings. I have no objection to trade unions; I am not a trade unionist myself, but I reject the idea that statutory rights should be tied to union membership. I have yet to hear a convincing argument and defence of the current system. This is why I support these amendments. Both aim to fix this imbalance in different, practical ways.

Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would widen the scope of acceptable companions. It would empower the Secretary of State to propose certifying bodies—for example, Edapt in the education sector—to approve trained companions, with Parliament having final say through secondary legislation via the affirmative procedure. This approach ensures fairness. Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, goes further, removing restrictions altogether and allowing the employee to choose their own companion. This gives power back to workers, who are best placed to decide who can support them.

We return to the core issue of fairness, which seems to have cropped up many times throughout this Bill—not only fairness for workers navigating difficult circumstances but fairness for employers, too, who would benefit from clearer, smoother processes and reduced risk of costly litigation. Ultimately, these are not radical proposals. The amendments are sensible adjustments that reflect the modern workplace and the real choices workers are making. As the Government’s document Next Steps to Make Work Pay rightly states,

“all workers should be able to enjoy fair rights and benefits”.

I hope that the House agrees.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which, to me, smacks of common sense, while also acknowledging that Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is a step in the right direction.

For those of us who have conducted disciplinary and grievance hearings—as an employer, I have conducted my fair share over the years—these are often stressful, time-consuming and sometimes very divisive, not only for the employee but often for the employer, the manager and the other team members who are involved. An officious approach, in which only a trade union official may accompany the worker into the meeting, makes this situation, if anything, more adversarial, more us versus them and, in my view, less likely to lead to a sensible compromise that works for both parties. This is particularly the case for small and micro-businesses in which trade union representation is lower and the worker very often does not have that option. To widen it out to other members, colleagues, friends or even family members, as Amendment 99 states, seems to me a sensible move.