National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Ashley Fox and Torsten Bell

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I am listening to every word of your strictures, Ms Nokes. This Bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax-advantaged. I say gently to Members who do not agree with the detail of this Bill that they should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving that there is not already a strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing. Clause 1 provides for that pragmatic approach in Great Britain. Clause 2 does the same for Northern Ireland, and clause 3 provides for the territorial extent and start date of these measures.

I will turn more substantively to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Witney. At one level, I was glad to see amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the shadow Minister, which aim to exempt basic rate taxpayers. It shows the Opposition, as part of the secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of that looks like. In many ways, the amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, will mean that 95% of those earning less than £30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain what is pragmatic about withdrawing a 2p in the pound tax relief from a higher rate taxpayer without a student loan, while withdrawing a 17p in the pound tax relief from a basic rate taxpayer who happens to have a student loan?

[Torsten Bell]

The pragmatic approach is to allow people to continue with salary sacrifice up to £2,000 and to not bring in the measure for four years, so that people have time to adjust. Opposition Members will need to justify wanting to spend more than is being spent on the Royal Air Force on that—I sat through Prime Minister’s questions today, and I heard people calling for more defence spending—while not being able to live up to what that requires, which is taking seriously that we spend tax reliefs effectively. For everybody, there will still be a strong tax incentive to save into their pension.

Taking the approach that the Opposition propose, rather than our proposed cap, would likely be impossible to implement in practice and add unnecessary complexity. That is not least because employers would in many cases not know which employees would end up being basic rate taxpayers. They certainly would not know for sure until the end of the financial year, or at least late on into it.

Amendments 7 and 8 would uprate the cap by inflation. The Government have set out our policy intent for a £2,000 cap to be introduced in April 2029, with the timing driven by the desire to give everyone time to adjust. In that context, it does not make sense to index that cap ahead of 2029. Our view is that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for Budgets in those decades—or at least significantly closer to them. I know that Members are keen to start debating the 2031 Budget, but having heard from Ms Nokes, I think we should leave that for another day.

Our approach is consistent with the one that this House has taken under Governments of all three main parties, which is to have key elements of the pension tax system that are not routinely indexed, including the annual allowance. It is of course right that this and all Governments will want to keep the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet the objectives we have set out today.

Several of the new clauses probe at the impact of the changes. The Government have published a tax information and impact note alongside the Bill. It sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer, the economy and individuals and businesses. It also provides an overview of the equality impacts.

New clauses 1 and 2 focus on SMEs. I have heard suggestions—this has been gently hinted at today—that SMEs are more likely to be affected. The opposite is true. Only 39% of employers offer pension salary sacrifices, and small businesses are less likely to do so than larger businesses. Indeed, the status quo puts SMEs at a disadvantage relative to their larger competitors, which is the opposite of the point that the hon. Member for Witney wanted to make.

New clause 3 focuses on marginal tax rates, but the changes in the Bill do not directly affect a person’s marginal tax. Those wanting to make pension contributions to keep their taxable income below a certain level can continue to do so, and I have read much misleading commentary on that point.

New clause 4 proposes an impact assessment of the changes before they take effect and five years after. I again commend the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who is showing admirable zeal for supporting the argument that I made on Second Reading that any responsible Government should keep the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review to ensure that they are delivering efficiently on their objectives. That is the exact thought pattern that identified this relief as needing reform. I look forward to the shadow Minister changing his mind and supporting our measures. The Government should and will continue to keep this and all taxes and tax reliefs under review, rather than singling this particular relief out via primary legislation.

I turn briefly to new clauses 5 and 6, which focus on the impact on pension savings. I can reassure the Committee that the Office for Budget Responsibility has set out that it does not expect any material impact on savings as a result of the Budget 2025 tax changes. I hope that these remarks reassure Members on the points that their amendments have raised. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ashley Fox and Torsten Bell

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

14. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of unemployment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

We all know the importance of work, and since the election we have seen employment rise by 500,000, but Britain is a country that has too few young adults in work or education, and where the post-pandemic employment recovery has taken too long. That is why we will continue our reforms to support more people into work.

[Torsten Bell]

The Secretary of State inherited a labour market that was a mess under the Conservatives, with nearly 1 million young people not in education or training, and 2.8 million too sick to work. Employment is up by 500,000. Economic inactivity—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might not like to hear it, but economic inactivity is down by 300,000 under this Government. No one on the Government Benches will take lectures on a good labour market from the Conservatives.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Unemployment is now 115,000 higher than when Labour took office. The Chancellor’s new jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill make hiring a new person more expensive. The family farms and family business taxes are reducing investment. Can the Minister therefore explain how he will reduce unemployment while the Chancellor is pursuing policies that increase it?

[Torsten Bell]

I do not want to try the patience of the House but, as I have said, employment is up by 500,000 under this Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to talk about that. The hon. Gentleman mentions what British business wants—what British business wants is a Government who are actually fixing the public finances and the public services that mean that when a member of staff gets sick, they do not sit on a waiting list for years, as they did under the previous Government. The Conservatives like to attack the Employment Rights Bill, but stopping good employers being undercut by bad is the pro-business thing to do.

Mansion House Accord

Debate between Ashley Fox and Torsten Bell

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

Exactly; that is what is going on. I speak to pension funds every week who say they are looking to increase their allocation of UK assets because political stability has been delivered—because Liz Truss has been exited from this building. I speak to Australian and Canadian pension funds as well who are saying that they want to open an office in the UK because political and economic stability has arrived.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Increased investment in the United Kingdom is always welcome. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will never interfere in the fiduciary duty of pension trustees to get the best return for their members?

[Torsten Bell]

The job of pension trustees is absolutely to deliver for their savers and the accord today is delivering exactly that, making sure that we have diversity of asset allocations in our pension schemes. So the answer to the hon. Member’s question is yes.

Work and Pensions

Debate between Ashley Fox and Torsten Bell

Monday 10th February 2025 Written Corrections

[Sir Ashley Fox]

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of means-testing the winter fuel payment on levels of pensioner poverty.

[Torsten Bell]

This Government have run the biggest ever take-up campaign on pension credit, which is worth around £400 on average to those eligible.

[Official Report, 3 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 534.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ashley Fox and Torsten Bell

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

22. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of means-testing the winter fuel payment on levels of pensioner poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

This Government have run the biggest ever take-up campaign on pension credit, which is worth around £400 on average to those eligible. It also opens the door to extra support and means that 1.5 million pensioners will continue to receive the winter fuel payment. The modelled impact of the decision to target the winter fuel payment at those who need it most does not account for the measures that this Government are taking to raise pension credit take-up.

[Torsten Bell]

This Government and the important charity that the hon. Gentleman mentions are here for the most vulnerable pensioners. That is why we are targeting the winter fuel payment at those who need it most, and why we will uprate all the state pension elements by over 4% this April. He raises the case of the national health service and how important it is to older generations, but it is his party that drove the NHS into the ground over the last 14 years.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Labour-controlled Bridgwater town council is increasing its council tax precept by 40%. That means that pensioners in my constituency are suffering from not only the loss of their winter fuel allowance, but an enormous tax rise. What advice does the Minister have for those of my constituents who do not qualify for pension credit, and who now face the loss of the winter fuel allowance from this Government and a huge tax rise from their Labour council?

[Torsten Bell]

I encourage all pensioners to consider whether they are eligible for pension credit, but also to look for the wider support that can be provided via the household support fund and the warm homes discount. I say gently to the hon. Member that the driving up of council tax bills is a direct result of the destruction of local government finances by the Conservative party over 14 years.