National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

For a Bill that proposes to raise taxation on working people by such a large amount, this has been a remarkably brief debate. But I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who correctly said that this was yet another anti-aspiration measure from this Government, and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who made it clear that this was yet another example of Labour breaking its manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He also asked one of the key questions, which I hope the Minister will address in his reply: as this measure is due to come into force in three years’ time, what assessment have the Government made of behavioural changes, and can the Minister be assured that the amount in the OBR forecast is robust on a dynamic accounting basis?

This is the final economic Bill of the year to be voted on in the House of Commons, and it is another Bill that targets people who are trying to do the right thing. The Bill is a bad measure. It is an anti-savings measure and it is an attack on prudence, so of course the Conservative party will oppose it. This final Bill, at the end of this full-on year of Labour government, leaves me with one fundamental question: why do the Labour Government hate the private sector so much? If you are a family farmer, the Labour Government will snatch your farm away from your children when you die. If you believe in private education, the Labour Government will put up a barrier at the school gate. If you save for your retirement, Labour will tax your every effort to achieve security in retirement. Why do the Labour Government take every opportunity to punish people who are trying to do the right thing?

The Bill makes a mockery of the Government’s own Pensions Commission, set up in July this year, when it wrote:

“Put bluntly, private pension income for individuals retiring in 2050 could be 8% lower than those retiring in 2025—undermining a central measure of societal progress.”

Back in June, the Government recognised the problem of a secure retirement. Now, they are adding to the problem.

I have a question about the numbers. It is interesting that this measure is scored by the OBR in that crucial year of 2029-30 at £4.845 billion, falling the following year to £2.585 billion. That is an important year, because that is when the Chancellor says she has put in all this headroom—how interesting. Does the Minister agree with the director of Willis Towers Watson, one of the world’s biggest advisers on pensions, when he said:

“While earlier introduction would be unwelcome, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029/30—the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rule. £1.6 billion of revenue in that year is a temporary gain which will be returned to taxpayers who pay employee contributions instead and claim back part of their tax relief”?

On the £4.845 billion—the full amount—is any of that actually a fiction that will be returned the following year, as experts suggest it will be?

The Bill makes it less attractive for employers to contribute to private sector pensions. We all know that there is less certainty in the private sector, because that is where defined contribution schemes predominate, whereas in the public sector, greater certainty is given by a defined benefit scheme. In the public sector, there is also benefit because the contribution from the employer to employee pensions is much higher than in the private sector. In the public sector, employer contributions are equivalent to 27% of earnings, on average, according to research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, but in the private sector the average contribution is only 8%. Why are the Government proposing to make it harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? The Bill actively exacerbates the differences. By the way, it does nothing to tackle the unfunded £1.5 trillion liability of unfunded public sector pensions, which will fall on taxpayers.

The Bill is yet another example of the lack of private sector experience on the Government Front Bench. This Government are the least business aware Government in our country’s history. They are taxing and regulating growth out of our economy. Labour Ministers are punishing workers who want to save more for their retirement, and making it harder for their employers to help them to do so. While they can rely on their cushy, gold-plated public sector pensions, private sector workers are worse off.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I want to put on the record that the behaviour I have seen on both Front Benches this evening has been about the worst I have ever witnessed. The debate should take place across the Dispatch Box, not from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] No—not “He started it!” This is not a classroom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Some 4.4 million of the self-employed are also not able to save into salary sacrifice schemes; it is right that we make the scheme fairer for all.

Let me continue to run through my numbers. Some 10 million people have signed up to a pension since auto-enrolment, which has limited the need for salary sacrifice. There are more than 900 tax reliefs; this is one of a number that we are reducing to raise revenue fairly at this Budget. Without intervention, salary sacrifice would have cost £8 billion a year by the end of the decade. Instead, we will now raise £7 billion from this change over the course of the scorecard.

The change will affect those on higher earnings more: 60% of the contributions come from the top fifth of employees and just 5% of those earning less than £30,000 will be affected. We will give businesses time to plan—this is not coming in for a bit less than four calendar years.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the Minister give way?

Green Book Review

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) on calling this debate, and the nine other speakers on speaking with great passion about the potential of their constituents and their constituencies, as well as about the role that the Green Book review—a rather obscure topic—can play in seeking to unlock that potential. I note that they spared the blushes of the Chancellor. When she announced the review, to unlock the potential of which those hon. Members are so hopeful, she announced further growth measures in the south and south-east of the country. That shows the difficulties there are in achieving some of the objectives. The hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) was kind enough to say that those objectives were the intention of the 2020 review: levelling up this country.

I am, perhaps, an ironic choice to respond in this debate. If I may stretch your tolerance, Mr Pritchard, I will mention some things about the area of the country that I represent, North Bedfordshire. To give hon. Members some sense of the disparities, let me enumerate some of the growth potential projects going on in my county: our housing growth rate is already two and a half times the national average; we have a proposal for a solar farm in my constituency, which will be seven times the size of the largest one in the country; we have the country’s largest road project at Black Cat roundabout on the A1; we have a proposal for a railway line, which will be the third largest railway construction project in the country; and we have the doubling of the capacity of Luton airport to bring people into the country. We are also awaiting, when the Treasury finally pulls its finger out, a potential £10 billion investment for Europe’s theme park from Universal Studios, which will then start a whole new range of investment potential in the south. The hon. Member for Congleton has the right person responding from the Opposition to answer some of her points—because frankly, that is too much for one area to take at one time.

The 2020 review mentions some points that have been repeated today, and the allegations were: systematic bias towards London and the south-east; the tyranny of benefit-cost ratios; overlooked unmonetised benefits; no allowance for transformation or other complex effects; and that guidance was responsible for strategic policy faults with no focus on where, or by whom, effects are felt. Those allegations have been echoed today, but I have to say to Members that the findings were that there were no systematic methodological biases in the process. However, there were significant problems in understanding of the Treasury’s five case model, leading to significant poor practice in the application of the Green Book, and some changes have been made as a result.

As I thought Members would raise the issue of disparities in expenditure, and whether those changes had any effect, I went to table 9.4b of the “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2024”, which enumerates the public expenditure on services per head in real pounds between regions. It splits that between current expenditure and capital expenditure, which is the focus of today’s debate. I have to tell Members that, if we look at those statistics between the years 2018-19 to 2022-23, real capital per head went down by 3% in the east and by 5% in the south-east. Real capital per head did go up by 20% in London, but it also went up by 25% in both the north-west and the north-east, by 24% in the west midlands and by 22% in east midlands. That is not to say that everything is done, but it is important to build on the progress that is being made. There is a lot more commonality here than we perhaps think.

[Mrs Russell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Fuller]

I am afraid that I am very short on time. I would love to give way, but I know Mr Pritchard, and he will not give me any more time.

The view that focusing on the BCR as the answer is incorrect. East West Rail, which goes through my constituency, has a BCR of 0.3. It loses money, but the Treasury still wants to push ahead with it—that is another question for the Treasury. There is not sufficient quantification, so we do not understand what those benefits may be for people.

I have one final question for the Minister, as I have only a little time—I do have some other questions, which I will send to him. Can he look at the implementation of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012? Getting that done is really hard for small businesses and social enterprises in particular.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure the Minister knows this, but I remind him that he has 10 minutes. He can leave a minute or so at the end for the mover of the motion, but it is entirely up to him.