National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

I apologise for the time it has taken me to make all these points, but this is a complicated area and we have quite a bit of time to cover a relatively small number of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, but I would be equally happy if he felt that a written response or a meeting would be more effective.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, let me make my declaration. I am a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, so such legislation is the thing I live for on a daily basis.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has laid out the ambitions of pensions. Unfortunately, in the first 18 months of this new Government, pensions are seemingly no longer protected as something desirable—that is, something we wish on our population so that they can build for the future and have a good, well-funded retirement.

Let us consider what this new Government have already done. One of their first moves in their first Budget in 2024 was to lay out the framework for bringing private pensions into the net of inheritance tax. As an adviser, I have to say that, when my previous Government introduced a measure to take personal pensions out of IHT, it was a very generous measure, but it has, I think, proved its worth. I was somewhat sceptical— I am one of those people who likes a low tax regime—but having IHT-free pensions was always quite a generous measure. Over time, it has shown itself to be a very good measure, because people are contributing towards pension funds in a way they may not have been encouraged to do. That has to be to the good.

I am sure that I do not need to tell this Committee about a lot of the planning behind pensions and why people do it. The reason outlined by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for exempting lower rate taxpayers from this regime is a good one. I say this as a practitioner: if the thought is that this is some loophole that is massively exploited by the great body of UK taxpayers, that has never been my experience, I am afraid. I do not see levels of salary sacrifice that would be sufficient to have even put this on the radar in the first place, frankly.

Why do basic rate taxpayers pay into pensions? I am afraid that not enough do. Thankfully, the implementation of auto-enrolment under our last Government will, I think, bear fruit as one of the most positive footprints that we left. We will, in time, have hundreds of billions of pounds put aside in good funds. Nest has been a great success, offering a variety of funds that taxpayers can choose, from lower risk to higher risk, and there is even a sharia fund, which was news to me. No matter what, the whole spectrum of the UK taxpaying base in auto-enrolment will be building up a fund for the future. During our time in government, we thought pensions were a good; they will restrict the number of people who may be looking for or needing pension credit in the future, because they have built up a decent amount for themselves.

For the 40% taxpayer, of course, putting aside for a pension is almost a no-brainer, because the tax saving is a good in itself, even if one is putting into a slightly riskier equity-based fund. Because you protected it through a good amount of tax relief, the downside still makes taking a bit of a risk worth while. Again, over time, risk usually means a potentially higher return. For those stuck over that £100,000 to £125,140—whatever it is—threshold for the 60% rate, one does not really need to be a rocket scientist to know that using pension planning to try to get back below £100,000 is a good deal. Beyond that, at 45%, pension planning is a very good way to go. For the higher rate taxpayer, it is so obvious to do that type of pension planning. That follows some of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s thinking that the higher rate taxpayer does not particularly need that additional help, even though I am never one to say that more taxes should be paid.

For the basic rate taxpayer, however, we need to encourage as much as we can. There is not much encouragement from the 20% relief; that is not very dynamic or exciting. Dare I say that if one stays a basic rate taxpayer, the risk of inheritance tax will potentially not fall on that type of family, given that you have two £325,000 thresholds and the relief for domestic property, potentially allowing £1 million for a couple? It is a broad-brush but perhaps reasonable guess that, if one stays a basic rate taxpayer throughout life, the £1 million threshold will probably be exempt from inheritance tax. It is exactly those people who need the help and support.

What we see with this legislation is not any grand plan for pension planning; there is a grand plan to take a little more money from a lot of taxpayers for the benefit of the Treasury. In so doing, I am afraid that this Government are in serious danger of destroying those really good foundations that we laid—with the support of the Labour Party at the time, broadly—in personal planning, particularly in auto-enrolment, and all that good work done over many years.

In support of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley’s very clever observation, which had escaped me, about the recognition of income for the purpose of calculating income for the student loan, it may be that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s interpretation is that there is nothing to worry about and this is already covered and will never be pursued. If that is the case, a statement from the Floor today would be helpful in that regard. Even if there is some ambiguity, which I have no doubt that there is between this multitude of regulations —for national insurance, student loan and taxation purposes—I see no reason why the Government would not adopt this amendment as very sensible. I thank my noble friend for pointing out something that the drafters had perhaps not seen in the first place.

I will be speaking, no doubt, at regular points during the day, but these are my initial observations. The Government should be very careful: they are destroying a very good bedrock, which we created, of pensions that were to benefit many millions of people across this country. This is a small tax-raiser too far, which will bear dreadful fruit into the future.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in the first group but will restrict my comments to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. This concerns the £2,000 cap in Clause 1, which unfortunately hits a crucial cohort of workers: those going through the gears, where their earnings are moving up from around £25,000 per annum to £50,000. There is a disproportionate impact on the younger end of the workforce—those getting promotions and taking on added responsibilities —whom we as a nation need to encourage to increase their pension contributions, given our rapidly ageing population. This cohort’s life expectancy may be nearer 90, if current trends continue.

There is also a disproportionate impact on our SMEs, which I will address in more detail later. Given the high preponderance of basic rate taxpayers in their workforces, the Bill will, as it stands, make growth, recruitment and retention of staff that much harder, at a time when they are still absorbing the £25 billion hike in employers’ national insurance contributions.

My final point at this stage is on bonus payments, specifically bonus sacrifice arrangements, which are a particular target of the Bill. This really is not smart economic policy, given our need for a performance-driven workforce, where bonuses on merit play a critical role in improving productivity, especially in the private sector. Frankly, they should also feature more, not less, in the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 17A and 17B would allow one year’s income perhaps for an umbrella salesman or an ice-cream vendor to be consistent with farmers’ or market gardeners’, who can smooth their tax arrangements over three years to average it. My Amendments 4A and 4B would allow the principle that already exists by which you can catch up previous years’ untaken pension entitlements to make it consistent for national insurance and salary sacrifice. That is only fair, because we must allow people to carry forward so that it comes with equity and consistency between the sort of employees who need all the help they can get. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how he sees all this working for the hardest workers, those juggling multiple jobs, and perhaps those with seasonal variations.

[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 Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I accept the noble Lord’s reprimand. I was actually making another point, which is about how many ice-cream salespeople are operating salary sacrifice arrangements. That may not be immediately germane. In fact, the remarks that the noble Lord just made support my point. Those part-time employees and part-time employers are already having to cope with the problems that arise from multiple employments and how the national insurance system is not, in truth, tailored very well for those circumstances. I accept that.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

I would like to assist the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on multiple employments. For an employer faced with an employee with multiple employments, which is not uncommon, it has no reference at all to the individual employer—it is of no interest. An employer runs a payroll scheme only for the amounts that that employer pays that employee. If there is a second employment, it is for that employer to deal with how much they are paying that employee. There is no interaction between the employers to say, “Do a management of NIC”. This goes to the heart of the problem with Amendment 33.

There is only one example where an employer has to take any notice of multiple employment, which is when their employee may have a second employment that is above the ceiling for paying the maximal national insurance. That is where you have a system of form CA72A, which is supplied by the employee to the DWP. The DWP may not actually do anything about it; I have found in most cases in my professional career that the DWP seems to lose the paperwork and the employee has to make an after-year claim for the excessive NIC that has been deducted. That is the only example where the second employment may receive advice from the DWP to say, “Ah, only deduct 2% from this employee because they are paying maximal amounts on a primary employment”. I wanted to clarify the current situation across national insurance administration for double or triple employments. I hope that is of assistance.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Yes; I thank the noble Lord for his advice. As I said, I have operated the system myself, and so he is really just making my point: the structures are there to deal with multiple employments. It is not being introduced to the issue by this particular measure. Obviously it would be more complicated with this measure—I accept that, and I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response on that issue—but it is not a new issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

HMRC.

[Noble Lords]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will ask the question in a slightly different way, which may flush out what I think we are trying to get there. Say, for instance, that there is an inflationary rise by an employer every year—there always has been and, one would have expected, always will be—and, in the world post this legislation, the employer has decided not to give a salary increase, for the first time ever, but the equivalent amount has gone into an additional employer contribution to a pension. If HMRC was to come in and investigate the payroll records of that employer, would it conclude that this was a contrived arrangement that fell within this legislation, or would it just be something that the employer can do, which the Minister seems to be describing as being perfectly good and dandy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I have set out very clearly which will be approached with the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure, and I do not think it is our intention to deviate from that very clear precedent.

Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, relates to the operability of the contributions limit for those with multiple concurrent jobs. Amendments 4A, 4B, 17A, 17B and 29A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also relate to operability of the contributions limit, with a focus on those with fluctuating earnings and their employers.

I fully understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised about how this measure will operate in practice, particularly for those with more complex employment arrangements and irregular patterns of remuneration. While the Bill provides the necessary powers, the full operational detail of the £2,000 cap will be set out in regulations that are yet to be published. The purpose of this two-stage process is to ensure that when the cap is introduced, it operates effectively across a wide range of real-world circumstances, including for individuals with multiple jobs, complex payroll arrangements, changing employment or fluctuating remuneration patterns over the course of a year.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

Is the Minister’s understanding of the Bill that the £2,000 threshold will be in the entirety of a single employee or across each employment? At the moment, with NI regulations the employee benefits from different thresholds in each employment that is held. That means that with less than £12,570 in each multiple employment no employee national insurance is paid at all. Is the intention for it to be £2,000 in total across any number of employments, or £2,000 per employment?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That intention will be set out in the regulations once we have fully consulted relevant employers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group either increase the level of pension contributions exempt from national insurance or seek to prevent fiscal drag. Both aims are very welcome. In many respects, the higher the exempt amount, the better; on the face of it, Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is the most attractive in that regard. Although it does not provide protection against fiscal drag, she did explain why. That said, assuming inflation remains under control, it would take many years for average contributions to reach the equivalent of £10,000, one hopes, just as it would take a fair amount of time—half, obviously—to reach the £5,000 level proposed in Amendment 7 by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others. Both would, however, offer meaningful support to average earners who receive a windfall. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley addressed the issue of bonuses earlier. Those earners may wish to act prudently by making a significant one-off pension contribution, without being caught by this punitive tax charge.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, offers a simple and workable approach, which he explained, yet this modest uplift would not be free of any fiscal drag, as we already know the basic tax rate on which the salary sacrifice threshold will be based. However, the amount would move if the tax bands increased—if only. I fear that, in the long term, this would work against the very employees the noble Lord seeks to protect, but it is better than the £2,000 mentioned in the Bill.

Finally, I turn to the amendments designed to counter fiscal drag, a mechanism that, as we all know, is one of the least transparent ways in which Governments of all colours raise revenue. Who does it fall upon most heavily? Once again, it is the middle and lower earners of this country: the teachers, nurses, engineers and shop owners—the list goes on—the people on whom the nation depends. Yet the Bill risks penalising them for doing exactly what we encourage: saving responsibly for a decent pension in retirement. The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham anchor the thresholds to the consumer prices index, while those in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, use the retail prices index, and we have just heard why.

However, taken together, this group of amendments is of real importance and I support them all, to a greater or lesser extent. We have to try to move this absurdly low number. Each of them, in different ways, seeks to protect the middle and low earners who are trying to do the right thing and save for their futures.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support a number of the amendments within this group. Obviously, the one that catches my eye the most is the one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which proposes the highest increase to £10,000. But I am very reluctant that we put into legislation more figures that become fixed and then become fiscal drag in future.

I write a regular column in the Money section of the Daily Telegraph—I am not sure it is declarable for this particularly, but it is on issues of tax. I wrote an article just a couple of weeks ago on inheritance tax. The threshold has been fixed at £325,000 since 2009, and I say with no great enthusiasm that we had 14 years of government, from 2010 to 2024, where we did not increase that. The Government with the blue flavour have not been good at increasing and uprating thresholds in line with inflation.

As has been said quite widely, it becomes the quiet hand that just increases more money to the Treasury in a fairly underhand way, you could say, because the Government have done nothing new: they have simply sat with the legislation that they have and, lo and behold, the magic of inflation cuts in and more money is raised from the same tax. If the 2009 threshold of £325,000 for IHT had been uprated to today, it would now represent £569,000, reflecting that in parts of the country, a house at £325,000 in 2009, which was intentionally free of inheritance tax, is not free of inheritance tax today. With this legislation, we are potentially implementing a fixed £2,000, which, with fiscal drag and inflated or inflating wages over time, will drag more and more people into the net.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said in glowing terms during the course of this debate how good pensions are. I have no doubt that everyone in the Room thinks that pensions are a good thing. Unfortunately, it seems that that good thing is being whittled away. It does not take much for people to change their behaviour. I am concerned that the £2,000 threshold will mean those on the edge will only ever make a £2,000 salary sacrifice. They will not, under any circumstances, particularly if they are a basic rate taxpayer, ever go to £2,001—with an additional pound —or beyond. They will simply have smaller pension pots, as was very adequately described by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, in his good contribution.

There is the magic of compounding—I believe that Einstein even called it the eighth wonder of the world. It is the magic by which, just with plain inflation, £1 is put away in a very dull, FTSE-based equity plan—or even, should one wish, into government gilts over a very long period—and it goes up. By receiving just 4% or 5% of interest per year, those small pounds from years ago become very big pounds by the time one comes to retirement. As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, very ably said, people have small pots. Even with the great success of auto-enrolment, those pots still remain pretty small; they are not quite enough to supplement a long retirement as people live longer.

I support the good things that the Minister said about pensions. There always seems to be a bit of a cover from a Government who say “Well, only 26% of people will be caught”—I think the Minister said 74% of basic rate taxpayers will not be caught—as if that 74% is more than half and so we need not worry. I am afraid that I do worry about the 26% who will be caught and may do different things—namely, they will not put money away for their savings. For administrative ease, I think the higher the better, so that we do not implement into our tax and national insurance legislation yet another fiscal drag that gets worse and worse over time.

The plea repeated by many in Committee today is to pause and wait, because this will not come in until 2029. Our wide-ranging debate has highlighted a lot of flaws and problems. One of the big flaws seems to be that the Minister who has drafted this legislation remains a little unclear, dare I say it, whether this applies per person or per employment. That seems to go somewhat to the heart of what we are debating. I would almost suggest that we draw stumps and come back another day when the Minister is clear on that, after having asked somebody—I suppose someone in HM Treasury—what is intended. Is it £2,000 per person or per employment?

On the basis of that ambiguity, however, I recommend that we have an uprating to £10,000 at the highest level. Given all the uprating measures that noble Lords have described today—whether an inflationary index is applied or a flat £5,000 becomes the new base level, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposed—I am afraid that the £2,000 threshold is looking very threadbare. It drags far too many basic rate taxpayers—the normal end of taxpayers—into its potential net. The danger is that they will not save and will not grow their own pots into the future. People on low pension income in the future will become reliant on the state.

What we are doing here is trying to get a bit of sugar today into the Treasury coffers. A sugar rush, where the future will have to be paid for as more people fall into pension credit and other forms of retirement benefit payments, could so easily be avoided by introducing every measure we possibly can, here and now, to get people saving for their own future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I have had the privilege of putting my name to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has added her name to it as well.

I own an SME business, and this Government’s changes to NIC have significantly affected it. Of the 8% rise in salary costs to my business in the past 12 months, 25% of that figure—or 2%—was the NIC change. The changes proposed would increase that further.

This amendment seeks a review of the effect of the change on SME businesses and on employment rates within SMEs. SMEs are the bedrock of employment in this country, as was covered by my noble friend Lord Londsborough. The addition of this pre-profit tax does nothing to encourage growth, investment or employment. This review is very much welcome to identify any changes within SME businesses, to ensure that we remain healthy and can create opportunities for growth and jobs for all generations, especially the young.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I normally do not support measures that carve out certain sectors from others in the normal weft and weave of enterprises in the country, but I support this one, particularly Amendments 12 and 24 which seek to carve out small and medium-sized companies under the Companies Act 2006 and charities and social enterprises. I think a tipping point has now been reached, particularly on the back of the Employment Rights Act, increased national insurance and higher minimum wages, particularly those applying to younger employees.

We are seeing that already with the highest rate of NEETs—younger people out of work—than I think we have ever seen before: 700,000 at present. What always happens under a Labour Government is certainly happening. It usually happens over a longer period—over the full five years of a Labour Administration—but it is happening very quickly within their first 18 months. Levels of unemployment are higher than we have seen. We now have higher rates of youth unemployment than the EU average. In days of old, we used to point our fingers over the channel, laugh at the level of youth unemployment over there and wondered how on earth they got it so wrong—but no more. The finger-pointing is now coming from that side of the channel to us, wondering how we could be so stupid so quickly. I think that tipping point has been reached.

A reality for small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly the smaller ones, is that they do not run their own payrolls; they contract out their payroll requirements to payroll bureaus. It is very commonplace. I would say the tipping point could be even up to 50 employees, where the company will pay a bureau to do all the complicated stuff—processing the real-time information, taking in the coding notices, working out the statutory sick pay—that comes with running a payroll. Smaller and medium sized enterprises want to get on with the business they do. Whatever the business might be—whether a retailer, a pub, a printing company or whatever—it does not particularly want to add to the administrative burden internally and deal with the cost of it, so they tend to outsource it.

My thoughts on these amendments might be a little different if we knew—and I will say it for a third time today—whether this £2,000 threshold measure applied for the employee across all their employments or across each employment. If it does apply to the employee across multiple employments, then the payroll bureau way of doing things becomes extremely complex. It will have an additional burden to speak to the payroll bureau and the tax office for the details of the employee’s other employments. Until we have an understanding of what that really means within this legislation, I think we are a little bit out at sea.

However, there are other things going on in the employment market at the moment. We have one sector that is growing quite well in terms of the employment numbers and the number of new employees: the public sector. It is about the only sector that is growing, and of course it does not really do much for the GDP of the nation because every penny has to come on the back of proper profits and taxes that are derived from the private sector.

As someone who was once involved in the SME sector, I know that there is often a competition going on between a potential employment available to a good and skilled potential employee in the market. They have the choice of going to the public sector, which gives six months of paid illness leave and another six months of half pay—there are not too many questions asked. There is lots of working from home and lots of other lovely benefits—such as an accumulating index-linked pension—which few in the private sector can match anymore. The days of the final salary pension really only exist in one place, and that is now in the public sector. Therefore, the SME sector has a struggle to recruit, especially when the market is good.

A skilled employee, when given the choice of working in the public sector with all those benefits or working in the private sector—where the pension, sickness benefits and holiday benefits are not so good, and the requirement to worked damned hard is different in expectation—will choose the public sector. There is a conflict going on in employment. The one thing that small businesses might be able to offer, however, is a better pension provision, and these measures will stop that. It is the one thing they can use to attract a good employee. To deprive the small business sector, charities and those in social enterprises of the opportunity to offer a little bit of gold plate in the employment offer to a very good employee is a very backward step.

For perhaps one of the first times, I actually support these amendments because employment rights and running payrolls have become so complex, and there are more and more burdens for businesses, which are negatively impacting them. A carve-out for smaller enterprises under the measures proposed by Amendments 12 and 24 are to be supported because the backs of small and medium-sized enterprises are breaking, and they need support that, I am afraid, this legislation does not provide them.