National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

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.