National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Lord Davies of Brixton

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I somewhat understand where the Government are coming from in trying to get rid of salary sacrifice entirely—by the way, it is still available for employees of the House of Commons or the House of Lords for the on-site nursery. One thing that the Government seem to have missed out is that they have not provided a lot of information on how they have reached the figure of £2,000. It feels as if they are looking for £4 billion or £5 billion to pay for things such as getting rid of the two-child limit on universal credit—not child benefit; every child gets child benefit. It feels like a short-term measure, as one of my noble friends has just pointed out, to hit certain policy objectives before the next general election. The challenge here is the long-term consequences of where people are putting into their pensions today. The other thing the Government do not seem to have considered is that it is not usually employees who decide the percentage that they are required to contribute to the salary sacrifice scheme. That is normally decided by the employer.

More generally, we are starting to see this awful approach of people on rather modest earnings reducing the amount of money they put into a pension for the future, with all the knock-on costs that other noble Lords have pointed to, but I would go further. How much money is paid towards housing costs and similar is increasing at a significant rate, so it becomes this odd sort of choice where people are trying to do the right thing. Admittedly, this may currently benefit lots of people. That is why Amendment 1 is so important, instead of “How can I take from Peter to pay Paul?” We know the other significant cost of pension tax relief is to make sure that we do not have doctors and consultants reducing their number of hours. So those sorts of policy changes have already been made, and this Government decided not to do that, even though it applies to bankers and all the other people who earn significant amounts of money.

Before Report, I think it is worth the Government setting out in more detail where they got their figures from and why they have ended up at this point instead of just, fairly glibly, saying this will not affect earners. We need more detail. The information put forward by HMRC is basically an insult to everybody reading it by trying to suggest that somehow it gives us a proper tax impact and information notice. It really does not. If we approached this in a more evidence-based way, there would start to be more support and understanding of what the Government are trying to achieve. The Government are trying to find some more money, but at the moment it feels as if they are hitting younger people, people still at certain parts of their career who are already stretched, and this is the way that they are able to make a contribution to their future. As has already been pointed out, it may not be so good for higher rate—and that is okay; people make policy choices when they vote for parties, although, as my noble friend Lord Leight of Hurley pointed out, this was not in the manifesto. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could commit to a more detailed assessment to share with the Committee before we return to this on Report.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I support the Bill. It is an eminently reasonable approach to the difficult financial situation in which we found ourselves when the Labour Government took office. No one likes increases in taxation—it is easy to say “No, no, no”—but given the outcome of the election, some increase in taxation was required.

I listened to the debate with interest, including the points raised on student loans in relation to Amendments 3 and 16. I do not understand it, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister does and that he can give a satisfactory response.

I am a bit concerned when people talk about the Bill “penalising” people. Taking away an advantage struggles to be a penalty. The idea of salary sacrifice makes no sense; it is regulatory arbitrage and a sort of kludge that has no real justification. It is also unnecessary. The idea that the pension system will suffer greatly from the removal of this particular tax relief is fanciful. Some people regard the golden age of pensions as having been 10, 20 or 30 years ago; virtually no one then had salary sacrifice and yet schemes boomed and people saved for retirement. We cannot sustain an argument that providing an adequate pension for most people requires this form of salary sacrifice, particularly when £2,000 is being allowed.

As I said at Second Reading, I disagree with the idea that this is, in some way, a mortal blow to pensions— I may exaggerate slightly, but there was continual suggestion that this was a severe blow to people’s attempt to provide themselves with a decent pension. It is interesting that people who are arguing to keep this salary sacrifice are those who, at the same time, oppose the triple lock, and yet the triple lock is doing far more than this would do for people on low incomes to secure an adequate income in the future, so I do not accept that argument about impact.

The important issue is that this bit of tax relief on pensions should be seen in the context of the overall tax relief on pensions. What is the right level overall of providing relief through the tax system for pension provision? We all know it is substantial; it is enormous. If you count all the different forms it could take, it comes to about £90 billion. When the scheme has matured, this will take away £2.5 billion. That is why I said at Second Reading that it is marginal; it is not crucial for the future of pensions.

The issue of tax relief on pensions is controversial. Think tanks love a report on tax relief on pensions. None of them is proposing an increase in tax relief on pensions, yet this is the way that we are heading. The Government’s figures—which no one has disputed—suggests that more and more people will seek more and more salary sacrifice to get more and more tax relief on pensions. Yet when the think tanks look at these issues, they say, “Well, no, it should be targeted towards the lower paid”. If anyone thinks that this will cause problems—I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; I think the Liberal Democrats have supported, or toyed with, the idea of having a flat-rate tax relief on pensions—I suggest that moving to a flat-rate tax relief on pension contributions will cause an absolute nightmare.

There is one point here that I accept. My noble friend the Minister can take it as a helpful suggestion rather than a criticism, but the use of the term “higher earner” could have been judged better. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I have a spreadsheet, which calculates the impact that people suggest this measure is going to have. Of course, the 2% and 8% feature means that there is a kink in the line of the relief that you get from salary sacrifice because, up to a certain level, you pay 8% contributions through national insurance and you are getting the relief at 8%. Then, after that, it is 2%. It is not that the Government are seeking out people to charge more money; it is the structure of the system.

Let us look at the figures. I sometimes have problems in these debates when other speakers quote figures because it is difficult to understand them without seeing them in writing with some explanation. I think that, in general, there should be a ban on quoting figures in these sorts of debate. However, I am going to quote some figures. The median level of contributions to a pension scheme is 5%—that is, between 4% and 6%—on median earnings below £40,000. Now let us take the higher figures: someone paying employee contributions of 6% with earnings of £40,000. They are using salaries in full on their contributions. For them, the change will be an extra £32 a year. Those are the figures we are talking about for those on median earnings and those on median contributions.

As has been mentioned, bonus sacrifice is clearly a separate issue. This is where the legislation is required. It is being exploited in these circumstances. The bonus should be enough. The bonus is of great value. Some people in the City get vast bonuses. The idea of using that money to exploit this illogical tax relief through salary sacrifice is abhorrent.

I support the legislation. The term “higher earnings” could have been handled better but the whole issue—people on median earnings paying very little more and complicating the system in order to remove basic rate taxpayers; perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell us about the impact it would have on income—has been over-egged; that was, I think, the phrase I used before. This is an eminently reasonable measure to address the country’s financial problems.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Lord Davies of Brixton

Committee stage
Monday 23rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to the Committee about pensions dashboards.

I am conscious that this has been quite a long journey in terms of trying to get the pensions dashboard in the Pension Schemes Act 2021 initiated. I am aware that, at the time, the House of Lords was keen that there should not be a private dashboard, but the House of Commons gave its strong view. As a consequence, the Bill went through without specifying that DWP and MaPS had to produce a public sector pension dashboard first because we were concerned—I am still concerned—that the longer people do not know what is going on with their pensions, the shorter the time they may have to make informed choices or, at least, to consider and understand what their pension and retirement will look like in future. That is why I have tabled this amendment.

Two things come out of that. One is that, in essence, what is required is for the Financial Conduct Authority to sort out all the different bits in order to allow private sector pension dashboards to get the necessary data and to be allowed to start operating. Indeed, Pensions Dashboards Regulations that were passed a couple of years ago were amended to remove the dashboard’s available point.

Let me go on a slight journey; I do not intend to delay the Committee for very long, but I am really concerned about progress. I am aware of the reset that happened and the issues around what triggered it, which I do not think are public, but we are nevertheless in a situation where we should be making more progress than we are. It is notable that, in a Written Ministerial Statement in October 2024, the then Pensions Minister, Emma Reynolds, changed the Government’s policy from what had been the case; in effect, it had been neutral on what was happening around trying to get these dashboards going. She put in place a policy, which is still live in government today, saying that we must make sure that the DWP/MaPs dashboard comes out first and is well tested, and then we will start. We are still committed to doing the private sector-run dashboards but not to any particular date.

I am grateful to the Minister for putting on a recent briefing and to the chief executive of MaPS and the team coming to do that, but I have to say that I was somewhat alarmed that it still feels as if we are a long way off. I appreciate the connection deadline has not changed. It was great in a recent parliamentary Answer to see the progress of data provided, but it started to get me concerned about exactly the issues I considered several years ago: that once we get into MaPS and DWP starting to decide what are the best ways to do some of this communication and what user testing works well, they end up missing out on the opportunity of what the private sector does every day in terms of clear communication. That does not mean to say we are looking for a cowboy scheme—far from it as there is still the Financial Conduct Authority—but that we make more rapid progress than is happening now.

I know some of the pensions schemes people are happy to no longer have the six months. I know from the latest update from the programme board as part of the advisory group in December 2025 that despite acknowledging that the Government were clear that there would not be a private sector dashboard allowed anywhere near to the launch date of the public sector dashboard its number one issue was trying to make sure that that was available as quickly as possible.

I am conscious of things that seem to go awry. There had been amber ratings for a while, then, all of a sudden, there was a red rating on the pensions dashboard. Nevertheless, we are still making slow progress, and I feel that we should open this opportunity to make sure we have pension dashboards available as quickly as possible. With the best will in the world, MaPS is not moving quickly enough. I do not believe we will have a MaPS/DWP dashboard until some time in 2027.

The original intention when MaPS took this over— in 2023 I think—was that the connections would be completed by then. I fully understand the history on that. This is the opportunity to get on with this. We have spent a lot of time in this Bill saying we want to make sure people have better returns and better understanding of what is happening with their money in different ways. For me, the dashboards are a key part of that, and at the moment, it feels that while the Government have not deliberately decided to go slowly, we are going slowly as a consequence of their policy choices. It is vital that members of pension schemes know their situation so they can make the necessary choices.

I am sure the Government recognise that they did not communicate all the way back in 2005 and then were found to have caused maladministration in terms of the WASPI women as a consequence. We are not getting into a debate on compensation or something like that, but it is important we let people know as soon as possible, and that is why I have tabled this amendment today. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I urge the Minister in her reply to stress the need for caution in this area. I am afraid I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is saying: we do seem to have been waiting a long time for the dashboard. However, I have always had questions about the private sector dashboard, and I think they can be answered only as and when the MaPS dashboard is up and running. The problem at heart—and it may be a caricature—is about the point of a private sector dashboard. It could all too easily be a way of getting hold of data. It is the old saying that you are not the customer, you are the product. That is the fear with the private sector dashboard, which is why we have to get the public sector dashboard up and working. We know what the issues are. It may be necessary to have private sector dashboards, but I am still not totally convinced.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Lord Davies of Brixton

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 73 in my name regarding SMEs and an SSP rebate scheme. I have made a drafting error by calling it four days when it should have been three days, in compliance with the law today.

Occupational health is a key factor in both helping people to stay in work, to try to prevent some of the illnesses, and to get back into work quickly, and for some time it has been a key part of the strategy of a successful business to do that. But I am also very conscious that SMEs in particular are not always well displaced currently to access, which is why expanding that capability has been a key part of DWP’s more recent strategies, which the present Administration have continued.

Sickness rates are significantly lower in the private sector than in the public sector, but what is common to both is that there is an increasing prevalence of the primary reason for sickness pay: people being off sick due to mental well-being. I am conscious that this is often not an easy situation to challenge or interact with if you do not have the experience to do so, and that is why increasing occupational health is needed.

Why is occupational health so relevant to this? It used to be the case that with statutory sick pay you could reclaim from the Government the amount of money that you had paid out. You might have paid out a lot more—100% of earnings or similar—but all businesses used to be able to get a rebate for the statutory sick pay element. I know that because I used to fill out the claims myself when I was working in industry. Over time that was whittled down, and it was finally abolished in 2014. Instead, the Government at the time created the Health and Work Service, which was designed to be referred to by SMEs for people who have been ill for a few weeks—again, almost as a provision facilitated by government.

One of the challenges is that this is continuing to be part of an issue. Many businesses, particularly small businesses—certainly in submissions made to me—are particularly worried about this starting from day one of people being unwell. As a consequence, it is important that we should investigate the opportunity to get a rebate scheme for SMEs to try to keep the status quo as it is today.

It is in the interests of government to support SMEs. As we have already heard, the statistics show that, unfortunately, payroll employment is falling. When in office I was very pleased that we saw it increasing. Indeed, I am certain, in wanting the Government to succeed in their ambition to get to 80% employment rate, that they need SMEs to be taking on people to work. As I have explained, I do not think the Bill will help with that, but one modest way to go towards alleviating some of the issues would be to introduce a straightforward rebate scheme for SMEs.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I speak in support of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, and in support of more being done on statutory sick pay. I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthen statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period, but they must go further to ensure that people with mental health problems have a secure safety net when they need time off work, and a pathway back into work when they recover.

The UK has one of the least generous sick pay schemes in the OECD in terms of rates and length. It forces people to remain in work while they are unwell, which risks them becoming more unwell and eventually falling out of work. Because statutory sick pay is inadequate, people who rely on it often carry on going into work when they are unwell. This can risk them becoming more unwell, to the point where they fall out of employment altogether. We need a sick pay system that provides real security, is more compassionate, gives people the time they need to get better and supports them to return to work when they are ready.

Reforming statutory sick pay is beneficial to the economy, to businesses and to people with mental health problems. As my noble friend has emphasised, presenteeism—going to work when unwell—is costing UK employers £24 billion a year, according to figures produced by Deloitte. It reduces productivity and business competitiveness, as well as aggravating a person’s illness. Introducing a flexible statutory sick pay model that allows for partial payments alongside wages would help people to gradually return to work after a period of sickness, or allow them to reduce their hours when needed without being signed off completely. Not only is this beneficial for the employer, as employees are able to return to work sooner part-time, but it keeps the employee connected to their workplace and reduces the likelihood that they will fall out of employment altogether.

Extending the length of statutory sick pay being paid from 28 weeks to 52 weeks will enable more people to stay in employment, reduce rehiring costs for businesses and prevent people falling out of employment and needing support from the benefits system. Ultimately, we need to see a higher level of statutory sick pay, and I see no reason why, when you are sick, you should get any less than the national minimum wage.