National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I need to declare my interests as a non-executive director and a board adviser to pension companies. I understand the Government’s thinking, in theory, about the anomaly, as they probably call it, of national insurance relief, but in practice, this policy will have serious negative impacts. Indeed, I wonder whether it will save anything like the sums expected, as it will have damaging unintended consequences on both pensions and growth.

We seem to have a “push me, pull you” pensions policy, with the DWP setting up a Pensions Commission to review adequacy and improve pensions, while the Treasury increases tax on and the cost of employer pensions, making pensions less attractive and more expensive. This will reduce adequacy and hit growth. It will certainly reduce the take-home pay of a vast number of workers. It is, in effect, a tax on working people, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has said. A rise in the cost of pension provision imposed on employers—but almost exclusively in the private sector—is surely the equivalent of a tax increase on ordinary working people.

If employers are already contributing more than the minimum, their pension costs are bound to rise because of this measure. The likelihood is that they will cut back to the minimum, making pension outcomes worse. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, doubts the scale of this impact. One of the reasons that salary sacrifices have increased so significantly since 2016 is that so many more employers have come into pensions as a result of auto-enrolment. There are hundreds of thousands more which were not there before; if they have advice they are told that it is a no-brainer to have salary sacrifice, because everybody benefits except the Treasury.

If employers are already contributing at the minimum and they cannot cut back, the likelihood is that as the cost of employment rises—because of the costs of pension provision—they will either reduce wage rises or cut employment levels. This is not some theoretical assumption, because all employers have to provide these pensions. The Government see this as impacting only high earners. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, have already described, this is simply not so. It will hurt ordinary workers, especially middle earners. Reducing take-home pay and pensions will either reduce current pay, or deferred pay, or both.

I have a number of practical questions for the Minister. What happens if someone changes jobs during the year? How will the new employer know how much of the £2,000 contribution limit has been used up so far? Who is responsible for compliance, and for reporting to HMRC? Employers may need to update their pension scheme rules, member booklets, calculators, website information, staff portals, and so on. What is the Government’s estimate of the cost to business of all that? What is the estimate of the cost to employers which need to renegotiate their employment contracts for staff who agreed to a pay cut to accommodate a salary sacrifice that no longer applies? Who will cover the costs of all the increased queries that are bound to arise, including the cost of system and software updates, and member comms? How many employers will decide to abandon salary sacrifice altogether, and do the Government’s estimates of cost savings factor in the reduction in growth, and the reduction in future pensions, to offset the expected savings?

In conclusion, I hope that the Government will think again. There is plenty of time. What do the Government want from our pensions system? Do we want private pensions to improve? Do we want pension assets to support growth? If so, we need to encourage more pension contributions and incentivise holding and investing more for longer. That will not be achieved by increasing taxation on pensions or raising employer pension provision costs. These are important issues to assess in relation to the £80 billion-plus cost of tax and national insurance reliefs. They should be the subject of a holistic review in the round, rather than continuous, ongoing salami-slicing, tax by tax. This leaves workers and pensions potentially worse off and will potentially worsen the growth and living standards of the future.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

Perhaps I may make some comments on Amendment 33 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lord Leigh. My noble friend recommends that there be some Treasury advice on this. I do not think Treasury advice is good enough. Surely we are in the thicket of drafting legislation. Let us have those rules very open and clear within the legalisation before us.

I am confused about what is intended here. It is intended to be a £2,000 limit for the employee across all employments? At the wind-up of the previous group, the Minister, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, quite correctly said that there would be excess complication in the system proposed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment because an employer would have to know about their employees’ tax arrangements and whether they had rental income or income from other employments or investments. That was a very reasonable observation by the Minister. However, this legislation is, as it stands, somewhat silent on a similar complication that would exist across multiple employments.

There is an attempt to smooth out monthly variations in the directors’ arrangements for national insurance calculations, because directors are obviously able to adjust their income a bit more fluidly. I am sure that the Minister is aware that if a normal employee has a very big bonus, potentially in one month, the monthly threshold for maximal class 1 deductions for national insurance will be breached for that month and there will be technically an avoidance of national insurance, because the following month, when employment income goes back to a normal level, full national insurance would be taken. For those able to manipulate their income—and I use that advisedly in a broader sense, but directors can have a little more influence on how they are remunerated—there is a procedure within legislation to iron out those peaks and troughs on an annual basis.

Accepting within the tax and national insurance legislation that a normal employee should be able to benefit from a big peak one month and avoid national insurance, is it the intention that across multiple employments that £2,000 per year will be available to each employment? I think that, as the Bill stands, it does, and I welcome that, because it almost matches what happens in other national insurance legislation applying to an employee. However, it will not be good enough simply to have Treasury advice post-legislation. I would rather that that be clarified today so that we can discuss it further and amend as appropriate on Report. However, my thanks, as ever, go to my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for highlighting the point in question, because it is what life is all about. Currently, it is not uncommon for people to have a multitude of employments.

The main things that I want to discuss on this group are the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Fuller—Amendments 4A, 4B, 17A and 17B —which all cover aspects of a similar theme. Call me simplistic, or perhaps old-fashioned, but I would prefer there to be similarities in different parts of the tax system. We have accepted in the tax system the three-year carrying forward of unused pension contribution relief within income tax. It used to be £40,000 a year; now, it is £60,000, and it remains unaffected thus far by two Budgets. I do not want to give Chancellor Reeves any ideas for the future but that sum of £60,000 seems to have survived two Budgets, so perhaps we may live in some hope. In income tax regulations, we have a situation where you can carry forward three years of unused relief, so, in year 4, one could—if one had sufficient income and this was a sensible thing to do in the tax regime in which one found oneself for that year—make a contribution of £240,000. The Treasury is very comfortable with that and, so far, there have been no efforts to amend that in the Budgets we have seen.

I go back to our discussion of the basic rate taxpayer, who may have multiple employments, who may be between employments and who may have both good and bad years. It would seem to stand to reason that we should have a similar idea of carrying forward to allow that sum of £2,000, as it currently stands. Obviously, I would rather it were higher; other amendments laid by noble Lords seek to amend it to £5,000 or £10,000, but I am talking just about the £2,000 limit. I know that my noble friend Lord Leigh gave some examples from real life but there may be situations where, for whatever reason, a pension contribution or a salary sacrifice cannot be made because the taxpayer—for example, a student, and potentially a newly employed one at that—simply needs the cash that year and is prepared not to have the tax and national insurance relief.

Again, this would be neither a difficult nor unusual situation. Someone’s child may be getting married, or they may need private healthcare because the NHS is not providing what is needed. Whatever it is, there are a multitude of real-life situations where cash may be king for a year. Following the income tax arrangements, surely it cannot be unacceptable for that small £2,000 limit to go forward for three years in exactly the same way so that the national insurance shield—that is, the benefit of making a contribution—is at least maintained for years when it was not needed.

Drawing on my professional experience, I can be absolutely sure that many of these brought-forward years are never used. They are used on a “first in, first out” basis, so year 1 carries forward to year 4. If it is not needed to be used, that falls out of bed, then you have years 2 and 3; in the fourth year, if any years are unused, you are carried forward to year 5, whereafter year 2 disappears. It is extremely rare for the full carry-forward to be used. The amounts involved in this sensible carry-forward measure proposed by my noble friend Lord Fuller seem very reasonable and not that costly for the Treasury, whose demand in all this has nothing to do with pensions but is about raising cash. I ask the Minister to look at this carefully—not today, obviously, as I am sure he will say no to most everything—on Report, to see whether we can consider this matter more carefully.

Finally, I go back to the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Leigh and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. If there is an intention behind the multiple employment arrangement, let us please see it in the Bill, not just in guidance from HMRC at a later date.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I need to declare my interests as set out in the register as a non-executive director of a pensions administration company and as a board adviser to a pension provider.

I believe that the Bill is premature—the extent of the amendments being proposed to it is evidence that it has been rushed, and I do not quite understand what the rush is, given that the policy is not intended to start until 2029. I must admit that I immediately thought at the Budget, when the measure was announced, that it was simply a means for the Chancellor to find some revenue to make the books balance in the way that she had hoped. That is not necessarily a criticism, I just felt that it seemed to be the reality. Then suddenly, a few weeks, effectively, after that Budget, we get the primary legislation.

I apologise to the Minister because I have enormous respect for him and I know that he has a very difficult task. I think he understands very well a number of the points we are making, but so many of the issues we are covering here do not seem to have been thought through. The list of potential banana skins and uncertainty seems to be growing by the day, and the practical issues simply have not been recognised, let alone resolved, as has already been evident. We will come to more as we go through Committee.

Let us just consider the risks highlighted in some of the amendments. For example, Amendments 4 and 17 from my noble friend Lord Leigh, to which I have added my name, are trying to clarify what is actually caught by the Bill. If an employer increases workers’ pension contributions, will it automatically be assumed that that was in some way a salary sacrifice? The employer may just have decided to increase its contributions for some other reason. How will we know? How will anyone know?

The uncertainties do not stop there. What about Amendment 33, to which I have also added my name? If someone has multiple jobs, how will anyone be able to track the salary sacrifice pension contributions made through a tax year? We will come on to what happens when someone changes jobs.

We saw in the previous group the effect on student loan costs for students. I know the Minister said that can be dealt with elsewhere in regulations because those student loan rules are set in other regulations, but if they are not in the Bill then they will be caught, it seems to me. I did not hear an argument that says they will not be.

Who is responsible for compliance? Who is responsible for reporting to HMRC? Again, we have heard about the problem with privacy. They are just the uncertainties that we are trying to sort out with some of these amendments.

Then we have the unknowns, which seem to be skirted over. We certainly know that take-home pay will fall for a number of workers who currently get salary sacrifice, either by the 2% or the 8% of the national insurance contribution offset they will potentially lose. Employer costs will rise.

I have huge respect for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and all the calculations he does, and I recognise that, in some ways, the amounts of money, as he correctly calculated, perhaps seem rather small to us. However, as an economist, I know that decisions, incentives and behavioural changes occur at the margin. It is marginal changes, however small, that can make a significant overall impact over time. If employer costs are rising because they are paying extra national insurance on the pension contributions that they have always been making, it is bound to affect future pay rises and employment levels. We have no modelling of how much that impact might be.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Noble Lords]

No.

[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 de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendments 8 and 21 seek to simplify the changes to salary sacrifice and link it to NIC, which is a tax that will be applied to the pension contributions. I note my interest in the register as an employer who currently runs a salary sacrifice scheme for our auto-enrol pension scheme.

In my Second Reading speech, I talked about the attack on the middle-income employees, and this amendment seeks to make a small adjustment to those middle-income earners. I support other amendments in this group in principle, especially those trying to increase the limit. I would welcome a higher limit than the one I am proposing, but this is a practical change and will help many. I tried to create equality by increasing the NIC free limit for all employees up to a proposed limit of £50,000 to £170,000. This NIC threshold would allow them just to pay 2% on salary sacrifice pension contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Londesborough mentioned this inequity in their speeches at Second Reading, and it has also been mentioned a lot this afternoon.

As the Bill currently stands, anyone who has a salary of £40,000 or above and who is making salary sacrifice contributions of 5%, which is the auto-enrolment employee contribution, would start paying national insurance at 8% up to the national upper earnings limit—of which the current annual threshold is £50,270. At this amount, employees would then only be charged at 2% for further pension contributions. This amendment seeks to increase the limit to that figure of £50,270, thereby removing inequity for some employees paying 8% on their pension contributions and others paying only 2%—the majority being higher earners.

Another benefit of the Government linking it to the NIC threshold is that when they wish to make changes to the threshold—to freeze them or increase them, subject to fiscal requirements of the economy—it would automatically change the NIC-free contribution within salary sacrifice, meaning they do not have to make any specific changes to the limit. It would also allow the NIC non-contribution to automatically increase with some sort of link to inflation and wage growth.

It could also help with the implementation of these changes as it would simplify some of the changes for software developers, with all national insurance already set up in the programme. As we covered in the last group, the Government could treat salary sacrifice in the way NIC deductions are currently calculated—on either a weekly or monthly basis. This, however, does not cover someone with several jobs and how it will be applied to them. I look forward to the Government’s research, and possibly some clarity before Report.

A further small benefit is that it would make it easier for employees to try to calculate their take-home pay and what pension payments they can make on a monthly basis to help plan for the future. The amount this amendment would save for employees paying NIC is a maximum of about £41 a year—as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has covered—but these small amounts, if put into savings, would grow to a large amount by retirement age. Also, small amounts will make the running of a family home better.

Employers will still pay the bulk of the NIC to be collected, with this being 15% on these types of pension contributions. The maximum charge for employers will be about £77 a year, so not of significance with regards to what is trying to be raised by this change. The Government set out that this change was to focus on higher taxpayers, and this amendment would ensure most basic taxpayers would not have to pay NIC on their salary contributions. It would also solve one of the issues mentioned in Amendment 1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

Will the Minister say where the £2,000 NIC-free amount come from? We know it was based on independent research commission by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We know that three hypothetical options were offered to employers for feedback and that the response was that, of the three options, £2,000 would have minimal impact on business. How did the researchers produce this £2,000 figure as it appears to be an arbitrary amount?

This practical amendment does not change the principle of the Bill or what the Government are trying to achieve. It closes a loophole for some who are making pension contributions without paying NIC. This change does not change the focus from removing the allowance from the target group—higher rate taxpayers and additional taxpayers—who, according to the Minister, account for about 87% of salary sacrifice contributions. The estimate of the sum raised by this change will not reduce significantly.

Finally, this change would support workers and working families in the UK, who are the target of the Government. I very much hope the Government will have a positive approach to this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I will speak in support of my Amendment 9, as well as the amendments to which I have added my name, Amendments 7 and 20.

I have proposed my amendment so that—if we are to go through this exercise, which I hope we will not—no basic rate taxpayers would be likely to be caught by the measure. If the minimum contribution on which they can have national insurance relief is £10,000 a year, they are unlikely to be caught, unless they get a very large bonus. I hope that we will be able to deal with some of these issues.

The reason for suggesting a £10,000 per year pension contribution is based on the minimum amount that the very top earners are able to contribute to pensions. Under the tapered annual allowance, for example, £10,000 seems considered to be, if you like, an acceptable level of pension that is not egregious in some way.

My preference would be that, if we are to go down the route of capping the national insurance reliefs available to anyone who is paying into a pension, we do that in the way that I have just suggested, which is the same as one does with tax relief. If you pay in more than £60,000 a year, you do not get any extra tax relief; but if you pay in, for example, more than £10,000 a year, you do not get any national insurance relief on the amounts on top of that. That would be so much simpler.

I stress to the Committee that I believe that the Government and the Minister have not realised the complexity—the sheer scale of the administrative tasks—that will be involved if the Bill proceeds as it is. I liked the idea suggested by my noble friend Lord Leigh to put this on hold and do the work that we are trying to get the Government to do straight after the Bill passes before we finish and finalise the legislation, so that we have a better idea of what we are doing.

I also have a lot of sympathy with the approach that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has outlined. We all seem to be trying to make the Bill operate in practice in a rather less difficult, complicated and costly administrative manner. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to which I added my name, on £5,000 are just another way of trying to square this circle. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts.

I must confess that the idea of inflation linking this limit, if we were to get it, each year would probably just add to the complexity of an already incredibly complex set of changes that we are thinking of making to the Bill. We would not know, from one year to the next, what the new limit will be, because it will not be £2,000 or £10,000—I hope we will not end up there. I hope the Minister understands the spirit in which I am trying to suggest the £10,000 figure and the people I am trying to help: the basic rate taxpayers. I really do fear that they will have a much worse pension outcome if this goes ahead.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this is the group of amendments on which I have been the most focused. I will not repeat my Second Reading speech, in which I talked about the importance of growing pension savings to fuel the growth agenda, but the Government must realise that this policy just does not align with that. However, I hope that the Government are beginning to understand that life today is long and it is not easy to put aside enough from the working years to achieve a decent retirement without depending on the state. According to the Resolution Foundation, changes made under the Bill will hit at least half of those who use salary sacrifice, affecting a large number and a wide range of households.

Different noble Lords, as we see in the amendments here, have proposed different increases to the contributions limit. Amendments 7, 10, 11, 20, 22 and 23 are in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for signing some of them. The core of my amendments would increase the contributions limit from £2,000 to £5,000, preferably with a further annual increase linked to RPI. I confess that there is not a lot of science behind my choice of £5,000, but running it past people who deal with pensions, I began to think I had hit a sweet spot with that figure. The response was that it would support people making the rather difficult choice of what to do with their money and provide a little more of an incentive to save in a pension rather than to spend.

As part of this process, my colleagues in the other place were able to obtain some research from the Commons Library, using PolicyEngine and its interactive dashboard. That work is not definitive but it provides a useful picture of the distributional effects of raising the contribution limit. An uplift of £5,000 would give the greatest gains to the two top income deciles—we would all expect that. But just a shave behind those two deciles, the next highest gainers are the second decile, which is not, I expect, the result that the Government would have predicted. This group would have within it a cohort of young people, probably in their early to mid-20s, perhaps one pay rise into their careers, still willing to live in shared accommodation and to live quite frugally, and not yet trying to pay off student loans, get a mortgage or support children. Surely this is the group that any Government should target to get into saving for a pension in a big way.

Early investment enables a pension pot to grow, but it is a narrow window. As people move into the age of families and mortgages, they cut or even stop pension savings, and women are even more affected if they reduce work to care for children. Only later in life do people return to significant savings and by then it is very late in the day. Frankly, we should make sure that they also have strong incentives to save at this point in their lives to avoid sharp drops in living standards in old age. I think the Government have looked at earners as if they belong to fixed blocks: low earners, middle earners and high earners. In reality, most people’s profiles as earners and savers change as they go through life, and the incentives therefore have to be shaped to maximise and to meet that profile.

Some of my amendments would increase the £5,000 contribution limit annually by RPI. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, discussed increasing the £2,000 limit by CPI. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, considers this an additional complication but, frankly, we have to tackle this issue of frozen thresholds, which in eras of inflation have just such a negative impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 12 and 24, which would exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises from the salary sacrifice pension contribution cap introduced by the Bill. I also welcome Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, requiring a review of the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff.

Small and medium enterprises have been hammered under this Government. They have introduced policies that will cost businesses £25 billion annually in tax compliance alone, according to the firm Together Accounting. Their previous NICs hike added a further £25 billion burden and there are business rate hikes, minimum wage increases and the Employment Rights Act. Is it any wonder that 52 businesses per 10,000 are entering insolvency, nearly double the rate from just five years ago? The Federation of Small Businesses reports that 63% of businesses now cite tax as their primary concern. Business confidence has plummeted. This is something that I have spoken about many times, and the Conservative Party stands with small businesses. They are the lifeblood of our communities, our jobs market and our economy.

Our amendment tries to shield SMEs and charities from what is effectively yet another damaging tax by exempting them from this policy. Given the onslaught SMEs have suffered under the Government, the rationale for this needs little explanation. SMEs operate on thin margins, often without sophisticated accounting mechanisms or payroll and accounting teams. They will be disproportionately affected by this policy and should be exempt.

Turning to charities, before the Budget was even confirmed, the Charity Finance Group ran a survey of the sector specifically on the question of salary sacrifice. It found, and I urge the Committee to note these figures carefully, that 81% of charities reported that the salary sacrifice change would have a negative impact on their ability to offer competitive benefits to staff. Nearly seven in 10 had already started to reduce headcount or expected to do so in the near future, and that was before this further measure. It is not surprising that they are worried, as in my experience charities often have more complex employment arrangements: seasonal working, moving jobs, and weekly rather than monthly pay. They also often have much less sophisticated payroll systems.

CFG warned explicitly that, for charities operating on tight margins, salary sacrifice has been a critical tool and a way both to support staff and to achieve meaningful savings on employer national insurance at the same time, stretching limited resources further while enabling employees to build better pension provision. To cap that mechanism is to remove one of the few cost-efficient tools available to organisations that cannot increase prices, raise equity finance or easily diversify their income when grant funding or public contracts do not keep pace with costs.

The wider context of what has happened to charities under the Bill matters here, too. Last year, on Report, the House of Lords carried amendments to the then national insurance contributions Bill that would have protected small charities with revenues under £1 million from the main NICs rise. However, the Government rejected them, and we have seen what happened there. The Government have said that they want to build a stronger economy and a thriving civil society. That ambition is not well served by a policy that removes from smaller employers and civil society organisations one of the most effective tools that they have to compete for talent and support their people in saving for retirement.

Amendment 26 asks that, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Government commission and lay before Parliament an independent review of its impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, including administrative costs, compliance burdens, employment costs and the ability of SMEs to attract and retain staff—and, crucially, that this be assessed in the context of the cumulative changes to employer national insurance since July 2024.

Time and again, the Government’s approach has displayed a worrying lack of understanding of how small firms actually operate, how thin their margins are, how sensitive they are to cumulative costs and how easily confidence can be shaken. We saw it with the previous national insurance hike and in the rushed recalibration over pubs, and we see it all over again in this Bill and the rush to pass it when the vital detail is still to be settled. We know that the revenue collected will almost halve in the second year of implementation, so there will be lots of new compliance costs and an uncertain future.

If the Government are confident that this measure will not materially damage SMEs, they should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that through an independent review. If they are serious about growth, entrepreneurship and avoiding further damaging U-turns, they should look at the cumulative picture. Given the scale of pessimism now facing the small business community and the stakes for employment and growth, I urge the Government to accept this amendment. SMEs do not trust the Government to act in their interests. If the Treasury were to adopt such an amendment—as well as the associated one for Northern Ireland, where there are so many SMEs—perhaps this trust might start to be rebuilt. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to all of the amendments in this group. Again, I think that they are very important. I am pleased to have added my support for my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Altrincham and Lady Kramer—if I may call her my noble friend—as well as for the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Londesborough. All of them are picking up on the huge risks that are being posed in terms of additional administrative costs, burdens and complexity for small and medium-sized businesses, charities and social enterprises, which, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe explained, have already had so many extra burdens placed on them.

I reiterate that I hope that the Minister will recognise that we need this analysis and this type of work before we make the primary legislation that we are considering here, rather than afterwards. I also hope that, if the Minister does not have ready answers, modelling or analysis that would address the issues these amendments are trying to understand in more detail, we can, as we have heard before in Committee, put some of this on hold until we have a better understanding of what the real-world impacts will be.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the other amendments in this group from the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, which speak to a similar principle, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is, once again, trying to do the work that needed to be done before we had this Bill. All the proposals are important, in my view. Mine is a version of what we need to find out. I genuinely believe that this needs to be done independently of government because there are so many elements that government may not or seems not to have considered.

Effectively, this is another tax increase. At the margin, it can only make pension provision worse. It cannot improve it at a time when we are supposed to be trying to help people have better pensions going forward. It can only, at the margin, as I say, deter employers and employees at the current levels of provision and encourage reduction.

The Society of Pension Professionals has pointed out that 290,000 employers are using salary sacrifice in this country at the moment. We know that there is an expected saving in 2029-30 of £4.8 billion and a further saving of £2.6 billion in 2030-31, but even with those figures, the OBR points out that the revenue raised is subject to uncertainties related to the potential responses to the change. We have heard an awful lot about the potential responses to the change today and it is inevitable that, although the Prime Minister stressed in March 2025 the Government’s commitment to reduce employers’ compliance costs by 25%, this Bill alone will significantly increase the cost for those employers who have been using salary sacrifice as a way of helping their employees have a better pension outcome.

Pensions administration is already a problem that has been swept under the carpet for far too long. We know that the pension rules are ridiculously complicated and that data errors abound. If we continue to have these ongoing changes or salami-slicing of the tax advantages that pensions have, rather than one holistic review of how we provide pensions and incentivise both individuals and employers to provide for themselves in later life, then we will never end up with the kind of system we need. We will continue to add complexity to an already extraordinarily complex system.

I hope that my suggestion of a review, which would include what this Bill would do to the use of salary sacrifice as a whole by employers, will again signal to the Government what the likelihood seems to be. Given that the Bill already foreshadows future changes, employers who are currently running salary sacrifice will start to realise just how complicated it will be to adapt to the measures of this Bill. They will then think, “Are we going to have to go through this all again if the limit changes or if some other change happens? We’ll just abandon the idea of salary sacrifice altogether, and perhaps those who are already contributing more than the minimum will cut back to the minimum”. We need to be very mindful of this kind of change and whether we can have a holistic overall view of pension provision in the private sector, in particular, and the way in which we incentivise employers and employees.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

Allow me to offer my help to the Committee. As I understand it, it is possible for this Sitting to continue until 8 pm.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

We will discuss later, in other groups, the complexity this Bill could bring to payroll systems and HR admin. If you were to treat salary sacrifice on pension payments in the same way that national insurance is calculated, this would address many of the complexities that arose during Committee. I very much hope that the Government will accept Amendments 12 and 26 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but, if not, that they will consider my amendment as a fair and practical alternative for workers making pension contributions under salary sacrifice.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I first need to declare my interests as a non-executive director of a pensions administration company and as a board adviser to an auto-enrolment master trust. This is a very large group of amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her excellent introduction. The 15 amendments in this group cover a whole range of different issues, and I will try to be as brief as possible.

I start with Amendment 1, to which I have added my name, which seeks to tease out the Government’s actual policy on pension incentives. As the Minister and other noble Lords have said, around one-quarter of basic rate taxpayers whose employers are using salary sacrifice will be impacted. They will have lower take-home pay and/or lower pension contributions and, clearly, less incentive to pay more into a pension. Therefore, they have more risk of being poor in later life.

We still do not have an explanation for this limit being chosen, and the idea of limiting it to higher rate taxpayers makes enormous sense from the point of view of pension policy. Even a small number of people who are earning less than £30,000 will be caught by this. We have no explanation. I hope that the Minister might be able to help us understand where the £2,000 figure came from and why it is acceptable to hit the pensions and take-home pay of these lower earners.

Any proposal that we have heard over the years—and there have been many—for reforming the incentives for pensions have tried to suggest making the incentives for lower earners better. This Bill does the opposite. With a progressive tax system, using tax relief as an incentive mechanism will always give more generous relief to higher earners than lower earners who are on lower tax. At the moment, the availability of salary sacrifice helps to even that up a bit. If somebody is on a 20% tax rate, for every £4 they put into a pension, the basic rate tax relief gives them an extra £1. That is a 25% uplift. For a 40% taxpayer, for every £3 they put into a pension, tax relief gives them an extra £2. That is a 66% uplift. If you add in the 8% national insurance relief on top of the 20% basic tax relief, these lower or moderate earners will get a 38% uplift. If we take that away, they are back to 25%. I cannot explain how that is consistent with the Government’s aim of improving pension outcomes and helping lower earners or ordinary workers to have a better future. They will have lower take-home pay and/or lower pension contributions as a result of this policy. I understand that national insurance relief has always been a bit of an anomaly, but it is there, so taking it away makes things worse. Higher earners are only losing 2%. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment, but if the noble Baroness chooses to test the opinion of the House, I will support her.

Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, to which I have also added my name, talks about the student loan problem and seeks to find a way to exempt students who are contributing more than £2,000 from higher repayments or lower take-home pay as a result of this policy. I would be grateful if the Minister could help us understand the impact on someone with a student loan who is paying more than £2,000 and will say what the Government’s proposals for mitigating are. If we do not have any such proposals, I hope the House will support the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 12 and related Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seek to address this problem in a different way by increasing the £2,000 limit to £5,000. These are both arbitrary numbers. There is no specific justification in the modelling of what pension contributions are in salary sacrifice schemes. My Amendment 13 was trying to raise the limit to £10,000, which would mean catching even fewer people but more higher earners. I accept that there is not enough support in the House for going as far as £10,000, which is the minimum contribution that the highest earners can make under the annual limit, but I would certainly support a change to £5,000.

On Amendment 27, which has just been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, I understand the logic of trying to tie this to the national insurance upper earnings limit. I would support it, but I can see that the support is not widespread. In any case, adding this would make the whole administration system much more difficult to understand and complex. At least a round number of £5,000 is something that people can aim at and see whether they are over it.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, mentioned employers taking evasive action to avoid this before 2029. Will the Minister say what is the rush? Why, just a few weeks after announcing this, do we have this primary legislation which raises huge numbers of questions and poses such significant risks to the pension system? What evasive action can employers take? The most likely is that they will significantly reduce their pension contributions if they are not already at the minimum, or just stop salary sacrifice altogether because the costs of changing this system from the current salary sacrifice payroll provision and introducing new provisions will be significant.

This policy goes against everything the Government have rightly said they would like to achieve with their pension reforms. It makes the position of lower earners worse, it makes the pensions of lower earners worse, and it is likely to make overall pension provision worse throughout the economy. I hope that the Government might think again on some of these issues.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 5 and 21 tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, which rightly shine a light on the way in which this policy particularly benights graduates who are starting out in their careers. The Government have perpetrated the lie that the restrictions on salary sacrifice will affect only the fat cats, those with the broadest shoulders, whatever that means, the higher earners, another nebulous term, and certainly not hard-working families or those who are paid hourly. It is just not true. It is an example of Labour’s mis-selling, which is why I support Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The Daily Telegraph reports that 3.3 million employees will be affected. The Times accuses the Government of wilfully obscuring the effects of their proposals on employees who are left behind after the real fat cats have run for the border.

By far the most affected group are youngsters at the start of their careers—graduates, people making a start on their working lives. They are already burdened by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which has driven up their rents, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which has made it harder for businesses to take a chance on someone starting out. Graduate programmes have been bombed out by the jobs tax and dynamited by the rise in the minimum wage which reduces the incentive for employees to train up the newbies. Now we have a further insult and assault on Generation Z with the proposals of this slim Bill with fat consequences in an unthinking aggravation of intergenerational unfairness. Let nobody say that Labour is on the side of youngsters who want to get on. Even the OBR has twigged what we on these Benches have been saying for months: that the cumulative effect of all these issues is damaging incentives to work and harming those trying to climb the ladder to success.

At Second Reading, I gave the example of my daughter’s boyfriend who has a good job in the West End. He is no fat cat. He lives in a flatshare in Brixton with people he does not know, but his employer has recognised his hard work and, importantly, the value he brings to the business, so he was given a bonus of £17,000. Of that, he kept less than £6,000—a marginal rate of 71%—not just because of the tax, but on account of his student loan repayments. I do not know how it has taken so long for the OBR to realise that it does not pay to work. How much can these people be expected to bear? At least he had salary sacrifice to save for a pension for his future to reduce his reliance on the state in later life because, let us face it, employers are still shovelling cash into defined benefit schemes that are not even available to students who have to make do and mend with the less generous defined contribution arrangements instead, but even that has been snatched away by this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has so forensically exposed.

Taken together, these proposals risk salary sacrifice being taken away as a thing, which will damage employers and damage their opportunities to attract and retain the best talent because it will become just too complicated. As the Spectator’s leader last week asked, is it still worth going to university? When the world’s oldest magazine starts questioning the value of higher education, you have to wonder for our economy, our society, the future prosperity of our nation and what it says about aspiration in these islands. As somebody said last week, you used to get something from hard work, a reward for initiative, doing the right thing, but instead everyone is being beaten with a stick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I want to contribute, by supporting the Government, a bit of sense to this debate. We have heard so much doom and gloom, but what is the reality? What impact are these measures going to have? I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us.

The first point to understand is that salary sacrifice for pension contributions really makes no sense. It is a form of regulatory arbitrage. It has never made any sense and it is notable that previous Governments have taken away almost all forms of salary sacrifice on other in-work benefits, without forecasting the end of incentives for working. I have always been against it in principle—I would be happy to see it removed entirely, but possibly that might be politically suicidal—but a £2,000 limit seems an entirely reasonable approach to providing some fair incentive without the opportunity for, in truth, gross inequality. We are told that this measure hits the lower paid and not so much the higher paid, but of course the people who make most use of this are people with enormous bonuses. That is where the money is going and these measures will stop that.

Secondly, it is not an essential element in our current pension system. The key question that none of the previous speakers has addressed is: what is the right level of tax incentive for pension saving? That is a proper debate, and it cannot be answered by saying that more is always better. We have to draw up a fair judgment on where, and how far, tax incentives to encourage people to save for retirement should go. It is obvious that, if you reduce tax incentives, there will be an impact on people’s decisions. One impact that it might have is to encourage them to save more, because, if they have a target pension in mind, they will need to save more money than they did previously.

Thirdly, figures are quoted for the impact on individuals, particularly those under the higher-rate threshold. Well, I have a spreadsheet and I have calculated those figures, and, as I said at Second Reading and in Committee, the effect on basic-rate taxpayers on incomes around and above the median level is marginal. What sorts of figures do you think we are being told are going to have such a shattering effect on the pension system? For someone on median earnings, paying the median contribution rate, it is nothing. Maybe, if you earn a bit more towards the tax threshold, it will be something like £40 a year.

Now, nobody likes paying more tax. I could explain that the reason why there is this demand for more taxes is 14 years of mismanagement by the previous Government, but I will leave that to my noble friend. But it does annoy me that so much emphasis is placed on what is essentially a sideshow to the important questions of pension provision that we are going to have to address.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

As I think the noble Lord knows, I have enormous sympathy with everything he says, and there is a strong case for reforming and improving the incentives for low earners. However, does he not accept that, if you change for the worse the incentives on the people who earn least, for whom it is most difficult to contribute, there is bound to be an effect at the margin, however large or small the difference is? If your pension is giving you lower take-home pay because something you have is being taken away, that can have only negative consequences. Therefore, there are risks in this proposal as it stands.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thought I said in my earlier remarks that there will be a marginal effect: I accept that, although we do not actually know what that marginal effect will be. It is all hypothetical at the moment. One thing we do not know from the OBR figures is quite what the reaction will be and how people will adjust their behaviour between now and when this comes in.

I accept the noble Baroness’s point but, as I say, nobody likes paying tax and nobody wants to pay more tax. If you ask people whether they want to pay more tax they say no, but it has to fit in with the Government’s overall financial strategy.

Of course, only some people gain an advantage from salary sacrifice. Many private employers just do not offer it. The number is increasing all the time, which is part of the problem because it is increasing the cost. Nobody in the public sector benefits from salary sacrifice. We can, and will, have an interesting debate about public service pensions, but noble Lords should understand that it is unequal that people in the private sector can take advantage of salary sacrifice but people in the public sector cannot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am afraid I do not know what led the noble Baroness to believe that. That is not in any way my intention at this point.

As I was saying, 76% of those in their 20s who use salary sacrifice are protected by the cap, compared to half of those aged 30 and above. The Government do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle through which to amend the basis of student loan repayments—

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Can the noble Lord explain to the House why it is okay for those whose contributions are lower than £2,000 to get this special advantage of salary sacrifice, while those not lucky enough to have an employer with salary sacrifice should be denied it? The issue seems to be the salary sacrifice itself. The noble Lord is saying it is an anomaly, but the fact that people are getting it because their employer is using salary sacrifice and then you are taking it away does not make things fairer, as far as I can see.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I think it does make the system fairer. We discussed this extensively at Second Reading and in Committee. The Government intend to make the system both fiscally sustainable and fairer, and I think that is exactly what we are doing with this legislation.

As I have said, the Government do not believe this Bill is the appropriate vehicle through which to amend the basis of student loan repayments. As the Prime Minister said last week, the Government inherited from the previous Government a broken student loan system, and we will look at ways to make that fairer.

I turn, finally, to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 15—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Can the noble Lord clarify a connected point: if somebody changes jobs within the year, does that mean they will start a new £2,000 accrual of the exemption?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I believe it will, because it is per job.

I will make three main points in response to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. First, the changes proposed would impact only a minority of those in receipt of salary sacrifice. The vast majority of people using salary sacrifice undertake traditional employment on stable contracts: 85% have been in their job for over a year, 88% work full-time and 97% have a permanent contract.

Secondly, although the cap we are introducing will be based on each employment, the Government are committed to continuing to engage with stakeholders as we design the detailed operation of the cap and provide for it in secondary legislation. That engagement will enable us to test how different approaches affect those with uneven salary patterns and ensure that the policy is introduced in the least burdensome way.

Thirdly, on the point made in Amendments 2 and 18 on the pensions annual allowance, that allowance limits the amount of pension savings that can benefit from tax relief in any given year. It is set at £60,000 for the vast majority of individuals. The purpose of the allowance is to deal with exceptional or uneven patterns of pension saving, including one-off spikes or fluctuations in defined benefit accrual. It is specifically not designed to deal with day-to-day saving. The allowance also relies on individuals holding accurate records across multiple years in order to track eligibility and usage. That may be manageable in a pensions tax context, but it would be wholly unsuitable for a national insurance cap that must operate through real-time payroll systems. This also applies to other mechanisms proposed by these amendments that look to roll an allowance over multiple tax years.

For these reasons, the Government believe that introducing a carryover in this Bill would create significant complexity, and consequently administrative burdens, for individuals, employers and payroll providers.

I turn now to Amendments 4 and 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I begin by setting out clearly that these provisions operate squarely within the existing framework of the optional remuneration arrangements, or OpRA rules, introduced in 2017. The Bill relies on that existing statutory concept rather than creating a new or expanded test. As a result, its reach is already constrained by well-understood boundaries that are routinely applied in both tax and national insurance contexts. Under that framework, the legislation is engaged only where remuneration is structured in a way that offers the employee a genuine alternative, typically between receiving cash earnings and receiving a pension contribution. It is that element of choice which brings an arrangement within scope. Where no such alternative is presented, for example, where pension contributions are made as a fixed and non-negotiable part of the remuneration package, those arrangements simply do not meet the statutory definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this group has just two amendments: Amendments 8 and 11. While the former is just a paver for the latter, it is apparently required for Amendment 11 to go into the Bill. I make it clear that I am speaking in order to get the contents of my speech on the record; I do not intend to press either amendment, even though I think they are important.

It has been clear from the debate so far that the Bill fails to provide Parliament with the information it needs to assess the legislation. I am very glad that we have now passed the language on affirmative resolution. I also thank the Minister for giving us clarity now on how the cap operates: it is per employment rather than per employee. That is hugely important clarification.

Throughout the debates on the Bill, there has been confusion over the numbers and consequences. To get greater clarification, my former colleague and pensions expert, Sir Steve Webb, submitted an FoI request to obtain the numbers that can explain the conclusions of the Budget Red Book of November 2025 and the OBR’s supplementary analysis of 2026 as it refers to the impact of the Bill. Sir Steve’s request was answered in part, but key requests were refused. Therefore, I am trying to capture those requests in Amendment 11.

The amendment seeks the estimates used by HMRC of the number of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice arrangements above £2,000; a similar disclosure for higher and additional rate taxpayers; the expected number of employers expected to reduce their pension contributions in each group; and the contribution to the revenue numbers in the Red Book from increases in employers’ NICs—and, separately, employees’ NICs—as a consequence of the Bill. With that information, we can make a reasonable judgment of the impact of the Bill on workers, employers and pensions, and get a grip on the likelihood of the revenue outcomes forecast in the Red Book, which at present look exceedingly doubtful, as others have said.

Sir Steve was not denied the disclosures he requested because they do not exist—quite the opposite. HMRC said in its letter to him, “We can confirm that HMRC holds the information you have requested. The reason for the denial is to protect the integrity of the policy-making process and to prevent disclosures that would undermine this process”. Apparently, transparency

“needs to be weighed against the public interest in avoiding the disclosure of information which may inhibit the decision-making process”.

The information—noble Lords have heard me list it—is not commercially sensitive; it does not deal with state secrets. We are not looking for transcripts on advice but simply for basic numbers that any person would require to assess the Bill. I begin to think that, if the numbers were shown the light of day, the policy might collapse. I greatly fear that we really should be aware of them, and I want to be sure that no regulation can be put in place until Parliament has seen and scrutinised this information. I very much hope that the affirmative action resolution we passed a few moments ago will help us do that.

This is simply a statement to the Government: they need to give Parliament the information and numbers it needs to assess a piece of legislation properly. Scrutiny is meant to be our job, and we cannot scrutinise if the appropriate numbers are not provided. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain a little more about what the Government believe the intention and the outcome of this policy will be. He did not answer my question earlier on why there is a rush to get this measure through Parliament so fast. Have the Government quantified the extra employer costs of the higher 15% national insurance contributions from the employer, and the 8% or 2% extra national insurance contribution per member, and quantified it in money terms and in what it will mean for pension provision and future pensioner poverty?

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening so carefully, as ever, and considering the comments made by our Benches. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, are well written and would ensure that, before regulations are made to implement the cap, the Government must publish the relevant information on how many basic rate taxpayers are affected. The policy rests on a concept of excess savings—or at least tax advantaged excess savings—and it may catch a whole range of taxpayers who have insufficient savings.

It is very useful for us to tease out the difference between these two outcomes. That is possible only if we have much more information on the distribution impacts of the policy, which the Government should be comfortable sharing with us. As we debate this, we have heard a range of observations on who is affected. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, gave a colourful description of it affecting people with enormous bonuses. That is one perspective. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, reminds us that it goes against policy for very large numbers of people to have insufficient pension savings. In other areas of government policy, we are trying to rebalance that, so the policy is dissonant on pension savings. The Government should be open and happy to share this information with us.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, the Government already have this information. That may well be sufficient evidence for us to appreciate that the incentives are rather marginal and that the gains could be rather small. Based on the numbers that we have had in the debate, the number of basic rate taxpayers who are supporting this policy would be quite small and the contribution would be extremely small to the tax take. It might be useful for us to reflect on whether it is worth destabilising pension savings for that purpose.

The noble Baroness has done a good job of setting out the rationale for her amendment. I do not want to intrude further on your Lordships’ House by repeating her arguments. These amendments are sensible and chime well with the amendments that we have tabled from these Benches, which would require the affirmative resolution procedure for most regulations. A debate on those questions will be greatly aided by the information that the noble Baroness has set out. We will be listening carefully to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 31 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for putting their names to it. I will also speak to Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, a charity professional in the best meaning of the word. She is very sorry not to be here today. Her amendment is in the same spirit as ours, and she is right that the impact on charities is very important and should be kept under review.

His Majesty’s Official Opposition will continue to be a voice for small and medium-sized enterprises. We have heard, time and time again, from small businesses about the weight of burden that this Government continue to pile upon them—tax after tax, regulation after regulation. The Minister did not even answer my question at Question Time this morning about whether he would consider options for exempting SMEs from the burden of regulation. This amendment presents such an opportunity for the Government and would demonstrate that they listen; to show that they take seriously the mountains of complexity heaped upon small businesses and small social enterprises; and to provide some measure of relief and some acknowledgement publicly that these cumulative pressures cannot be ignored indefinitely.

The Minister suggested in Committee that only some 10% of employees in small and medium-sized enterprises have pension contributions through salary sacrifice that exceed the proposed cap. That may well be the case today, but with public awareness, more SMEs may introduce it. We on these Benches would like to see that figure grow, as saving for a pension is one of the most desirable and cost-effective methods of saving, as I am always explaining to the next generation. Salary sacrifice is also one of the few tools available to a small employer competing against a large corporation for talent and productive workers.

An independent review over a year would allow us all to consider the impact of the changes on SMEs and charities. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 31, and I support Amendments 32 and 33. All these amendments seek to help the Government to recognise that there is a serious impact if this Bill goes through as currently proposed, particularly on employers in smaller and medium-sized companies. I believe that the Minister confirmed that some 99% of employers in auto-enrolment are SMEs. The costs of complying with pension auto-enrolment have already been significant. Some of those employers have been advised that it is a “no-brainer” for them to use salary sacrifice as a way of mitigating some of the extra costs involved in having to provide pensions for their staff who want to stay in them.

We have imposed these extra costs on employers already; some employers have been good enough to put in more than the auto-enrolment minimum. What this Bill would do is to pile extra costs on to them, because if they are using salary sacrifice, they will have to renegotiate employment contracts, change payroll software systems, change the information that they give to their workforce about their pension arrangements and answer lots of questions that are bound to arise as a result of any of the changes that are proposed.

It should therefore be incumbent on the Government—indeed, it is quite astonishing that this was not already done before we got the legislation—that there is a proper, independent review of the costs imposed on smaller and medium-sized employers as a direct result of this legislation. That should inform the way in which the legislation is implemented, so that we try to do whatever we can to avoid the kind of problems that we have seen, where there are implications for employment levels, salary levels and indeed for pension investment and provision as an unintended consequence of perhaps well-meaning legislation, or legislation designed to hit an entirely different target, that is potentially going to fall on both employers and their workforces. We have seen that the extra national insurance costs have had an impact on employment levels already. I ask the Minister again: what is the rush in getting this legislation on to the statute books before we know its implications and what it will mean in practice for the corporate sector? First, can the noble Lord explain the rush and, secondly, consider putting this on hold until the full implications are better understood?

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 31. It is of particular relevance to the creative industries and would require an independent review of the Act’s impact on small and medium-sized enterprises within 12 months of its passing. It would specifically require that review to examine the impact on those with “irregular remuneration”, “seasonal working patterns”, or “multiple employments”.

That language almost exactly describes the working pattern of a freelance editor, a set designer or an editor moving between short-term contracts across a year. Many of the production companies, commercial houses and independent studios that engage those workers are themselves SMEs. Amendment 31 would ensure that Parliament receives evidence of how the Act operates in practice for both the workers and the businesses that depend on them. I therefore urge the House to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 34 from the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and I offer my support. It is entirely pragmatic. I would also throw into this documentation reservoir the OBR’s forecasts, which I found quite confusing in relation to the impact of the Bill. What is being suggested in this amendment does not apply only to the National Insurance Contributions Bill, and many of us as parliamentarians—certainly I as one—find the paperwork around Bills often baffling and confusing, and to bring this together in a far more coherent way would make us better legislators. But let us spare a thought for the CEOs, the finance directors and the CFOs, two of whom have come to me and asked me to explain how the Bill is going to impact their businesses, and I struggle to do so.

As many noble Lords know, I am a bit of a productivity disciple and our productivity in this area is really poor. Part of the reason for that is that the publication of relevant documents is so scattergun. If you do not have a legal training, as most of us do not, it is a challenge not just in terms of legal language but often in numeracy. In Committee, we often found that we did not know whether the Bill applied per person or per job. We now have a clarification, for which I thank the Minister. But that is pretty damning in itself, is it not?

So I wholeheartedly support this. There is no controversy. I think Governments of all colours need to do a far better job of explaining the thrust of their legislation.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to my Amendments 35 and 40 in this group, which seek to do similar things in different ways from the other amendments in this group, all of which I support. I certainly think that the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, on the publication of relevant documents and reports makes significant sense, and having a repository of information would certainly be helpful.

This group of amendments is yet again trying to help the Government see that they are premature in laying the legislation and there is not enough understanding of what the impacts in practice will be for employers and workers. In Amendment 35, each area on which I ask for an independent report to be produced is itself a complex area of pensions administration that needs to be understood before we make the kind of change that sounds simple but in practice will be anything but.

It sounds as if it will not make much difference, but in practice, it could cost significant sums to employers, as well as having this significant potential impact on making pension provision worse across the country. At the very time when we are talking about perhaps making state pensions a bit less generous or delaying the age at which they will start, it makes private pensions even more important for anyone in poor health who cannot wait until the ever-rising state pension age. The idea is for them to have something to fall back on to bridge the gap, at least.

I hope the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect and who I know is very well intentioned and understands these issues, will take back to his department the deep unease across this House at the lack of preparedness and information that we have been given. Once again, could he help explain—and if not today, perhaps he will write to me—the seemingly inordinate rush, within just a few weeks, to bring in this legislation, which is not due to start until 2029, so that we have a better understanding of what the Bill’s impacts would be?

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which would require the Government to commission an independent review within 12 months of passing the Act, covering a comprehensive range of impacts. Among the items it would have to consider are, explicitly, “workers with multiple jobs”, and

“workers who change jobs during any tax year and have made pension salary sacrificed contributions”.

Those two categories define the working life of a freelance creative. The Government’s answer throughout the Bill has been that these questions will be resolved in regulations. Amendment 35 would at a minimum ensure that Parliament sees independent evidence of whether that resolution has worked in practice.

Amendment 40, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would go further and make commencement conditional on a review of the Act’s practical feasibility. Given the complexity we have heard about and that I have described for workers with mixed employment statuses, including those engaged by the BBC under off-payroll rules while simultaneously working for other employers, that is not an excessive precaution. Therefore, I support both these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

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

Amendments 35, 37 and 40, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, cover the impact of the future Act on pensions adequacy and on pension-saving behaviour and participation. As I have already set out, the Government agree on the importance of transparency, and a number of documents have already been published that set out the impacts of this measure.

I turn to the principled point raised about the impact of this policy on pensions adequacy and savings behaviour more specifically. As we discussed in Committee, salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were falls in private sector pension saving during that period. The key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years is automatic enrolment. As a result of that, over 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 saves 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 pensions 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.

Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, would require the Government to lay before Parliament a formal review of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s supplementary forecast information release of 5 February 2026, and specifically its analysis of behavioural responses by organisations to the provisions in the Bill. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and its supplementary forecast publication set out how behavioural responses have been considered in certifying the costings. A summary of these behavioural assumptions was also published in the policy costing note accompanying the Budget. The supplementary forecast information was drawn from analysis and data—

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

It would be helpful to have on record some idea of who is responsible, when talking about behavioural response, for reporting to HMRC and for compliance, and who will face penalties for any national insurance contributions that are due which were wrongly deducted. Is it payroll providers? Is it employers? Is it the members? If any of those groups are on the line for paying penalties, would not the limit itself perhaps put paid to salary sacrifice? Is that something that the Government have considered?