National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

If I may interject, especially with such a load of—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We will finish at 7.45 pm.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

There is agreement on my side that we will go on for a little while after that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Sorry—I was advised that there is no agreement beyond 7.45 pm.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

It has been agreed with the clerks and everyone that we will go beyond that to 8 pm so that we can try to get it all finished.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Well, I have been told that there is no agreement beyond 7.45 pm. I do not have a Whip in here.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

That is not my fault.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

What happens if we do not finish this group?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We will stick with 8 pm. If we start now, we will be able to finish it by then; if not, we will not.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I will not speak, if that helps.

Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, I will make some general comments about the Budget and then some suggestions that might help the Government to generate some growth via the financial sector. I declare my interest as a director of a financial services firm.

This was a budget for politics, not economics. Other than restoring some financial headroom, this was a Budget for ideology at the expense of the promises made to voters about tax and growth. It was a reinforcement of the culture of dependency that is slowly but surely strangling the economies of western Europe. We are living in a society where rights and entitlements are everywhere, but duties and responsibilities no longer seem to matter. Of course, there should be a safety net, but we are now in a position where in many cases it is more remunerative, as many other noble Lords have said today, to stay at home than go to work. This is a disaster for our economy, our culture, and the development of our children, as my noble friend Lord Bailey said earlier.

The abolition of the two-child benefit cap magnifies the problem—and, which has not been mentioned, adds to the pull factors attracting even more immigration to this country, both legal and illegal. The dependency culture was illustrated by a radio interview given this week by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who described the additional benefits in the Budget as

“an investment in support for poorer families”.

The UK needs more investment, but transfer payments do not add to real growth or competitiveness. What we need is investment in the businesses of the future that can create jobs and wealth.

The Government recognise the importance of private sector investment, as the Minister said in his opening speech, and of scale-ups, and sensibly increased the thresholds for qualifying EIS and venture capital trusts in the Budget. This was welcome—but in the same breath the Chancellor reduced the incentive to invest in these high-risk companies by cutting the income tax relief from 30% to 20%. The last time the Government cut relief in this way was in 2007, which led to a catastrophic reduction in inflows into venture capital. Inflows actually fell by 80% over the subsequent years, and it took 16 years to recover to the original peak.

Investor demand in high-risk companies from private investors is, understandably, very sensitive to levels of tax incentives. We are already seeing a substantial reduction in demand for AIM stocks following last year’s reduction in the BPR from 40% to 20%. I urge the Government to look again at the impact of the reduction in tax relief, which may lead to a much sharper decline in investment than is currently envisaged.

In addition, it is worth looking at these measures in relation to AIM. The reductions in BPR and VCT relief affect listed companies, but not unlisted companies. EIS and unlisted IHT schemes now have a clear advantage over AIM. This may be an unintended consequence of these measures, as I know the Government are keen to promote London public markets as they are so important for scaling up.

Another source of potential growth for UK plc is the stocks and shares ISA. ISAs attract more than £100 billion of investment from private individuals. Two-thirds of this goes into cash ISAs. The Budget reduced the investable limit from £20,000 to £12,000. I understand this decision, as cash ISAs do little to generate growth. I will make a suggestion for the future of stocks and shares ISAs, which constitute a significant £30 billion of investment. The reality is that most of the investment going into these ISAs ends up in foreign companies, as is the case with our £3 trillion defined benefit pension schemes, where only 4% is invested in UK companies. Why do we provide tax advantages to invest in Microsoft of Nvidia when there are excellent investment opportunities here which would help grow our economy? Given our urgent need for investment—on which I think we all agree—now is the time for the Government to get a return on their tax breaks and require ISA investors to buy UK companies only. There is an opportunity here to kick-start a recovery—

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

I ask the noble Lord to bring his remarks to an end, as he is over the time limit.