National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Torsten Bell

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I think I have already answered the right hon. Member’s question: it is important to keep tax reliefs under review. The cost of pension salary sacrifice is growing very fast indeed, so we have reviewed this tax relief and think it is important to bring in pragmatic changes, as I will come on to.

As I was saying, I am confidently looking forward—

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I am going to make a bit of progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Member.

The truth is that reform was inevitable. Although Conservative Members are not saying it now, they know this is true, because it is what they said in government. In the 2015 summer Budget, they said:

“Salary sacrifice arrangements…are becoming increasingly popular and the cost to the taxpayer is rising”—

[Interruption.] I will come on to what the last Government wanted to do in the pensions space in a second. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is so keen to hear this; he is setting me up nicely for what is coming in a second.

The summer Budget of 2015 went on to say:

“The government will actively monitor the growth of these schemes and their effect on tax receipts”,

which is the same argument that I just made to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). That monitoring led, a year later, to the then Chancellor—now Baron Hammond of Runnymede—announcing benefit-in-kind restrictions. He told this House:

“The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary…and pay much lower tax… That is unfair”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 907.]

He was right then, and the same argument holds today.

Former Conservative Ministers should certainly agree, because in government they were planning exactly the kind of change to pensions that we are now introducing. By way of proof, in 2023 the Conservatives commissioned research on restricting salary sacrifice arrangements for pensions, which is exactly the same measure they are opposing today. What was the proposed cap on pension salary sacrifice in that report? It was £2,000 a year, which is exactly the same cap they are opposing today.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The Minister seems to have co-opted the amount of money spent on the Royal Air Force into his argument. Is he aware that absent the defence investment plan—it was promised in the autumn, and the House rises tomorrow—we have no idea about the size, shape and cost of the Royal Air Force, because the Government are late with their homework?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, because he always makes interesting points, but my larger point is this: if the Conservative party refuses ever to support any increases in taxation, increases in such spending—I think there is cross-party support for the Ministry of Defence, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned—cannot be funded and cannot happen.

Almost every tax expert in the country has noted the need for change, and most have called for pension salary sacrifice to be ended entirely. However, we are taking a more pragmatic approach by recognising that change will affect many employers and employees. Our balanced approach has two key parts. The first is time. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford, nothing will change overnight. We are providing over three years’ notice of the reform’s implementation. What did the previous Government provide to employers? One year’s notice of their reforms to salary sacrifice. This will give everybody involved time to prepare and adjust, which is widely welcomed by firms and business groups. Employers and payroll providers have already been working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that this change operates in the most effective way, and that process will continue as we approach implementation.

The second key design choice is the cap of £2,000. This cap protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers, while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The cap means that the majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected. It means that almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less, who work disproportionately for small businesses, will be entirely unaffected, and 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a pragmatic and fair approach, as well as the fiscally responsible one.

Some will claim—I am sure we will hear this from the Opposition—that salary sacrifice arrangements drive aggregate levels of pension savings. That is simply wrong. After all, salary sacrifice arrangements existed through the 2000s and into the early 2010s, and what happened to pension savings during that period? There were not rises, but big falls in private sector participation in pension savings. The existence of salary sacrifice did nothing to prevent a situation in which, by 2012, only one in three private sector workers were saving into a pension.

What made the difference was not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees, but automatic enrolment, the groundwork for which was laid under the last Labour Government and which was continued by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. That reversed the collapse in workplace pension saving, and it means that over 22 million workers are now saving each month.

We also see that contributions have risen in line with regulatory requirements, not with the growth of salary sacrifice. Pension salary sacrifice relief doubled between 2019 and 2023. Was that associated with a surge in average pension contribution levels? No, they have remained entirely stable as a proportion of pay, because all the evidence indicates that it is largely automatic enrolment that drives changes in pension savings. That should not surprise anybody, because the research commissioned by the Conservative party that I mentioned earlier pointed in the same direction. It found that the majority of employers reducing their tax bill by offering pension salary sacrifice did not use the savings to increase pension contributions.

More importantly for any member of the public listening—and it is important for all of us to be clear about this throughout this debate—pension saving will remain highly tax-advantaged after these changes. I have seen some deeply misleading comments in the media and otherwise on wider changes to pension tax relief, saying that people will not be saving as much as they previously were. The public should be clear that we are spending over £70 billion per year on pension tax relief, and that will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employer contributions will continue to be the most tax-advantaged part of the pension tax system, being made entirely national insurance contribution-free.

These are necessary changes that everyone who has thought about this subject knew would be needed, and they are changes being implemented in a pragmatic and balanced way. They are also consistent with the longer-term approach to reforming the pension system that is now in train.

There is cross-party agreement that the work of the Pensions Commission is important as it examines questions of adequacy and fairness. We all know too many people are under-saving. Many commentators have called for higher minimum saving rates within automatic enrolment, including some on the Opposition Front Bench. The commission is crunching the numbers and talking to employers, trade unions and the pensions industry. We should not prejudge its work so I would now simply note that higher savings rates means pension tax relief costs rising further. If we combine that with the reality that if pension salary sacrifice remains unreformed, the end point could be all employee contributions being funnelled through this route, it implies costs at least doubling again to well over £15 billion a year, which means £15 billion in higher taxes elsewhere or cuts to public services. That is the logical conclusion of the arguments from those opposing today’s Bill.

Then we come to the real problem of some groups disproportionately under-saving, which, again, Members on both sides of this House have rightly raised in debates on pensions in recent months. The Pensions Commission is focused on groups we know are most exposed, including low earners, some ethnic minorities, women and the self-employed. This is a real challenge for our pension system but the data is entirely clear that today’s salary sacrifice is not the answer. That is true whichever group we look at. Let us take them in turn. The self-employed are a top concern, with only one in five saving into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from pension salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but it is higher earners who are most likely to be using salary sacrifice. And many more women are under-saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.

These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect ordinary workers, they give employers many years to prepare, and they ensure both our pension system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. Opposing them is not cost-free: the savings from this measure are equivalent to over 250,000 knee and hip operations every year. The truth is that they are inevitable, which is why at least one party opposite was planning to introduce them. I gently suggest to some Members that they can, of course, take the easy route of opposing this change, but the truth is that they will be doing so with their fingers crossed behind their backs, because many know this change needed to come one day, and I suspect not one of the parties opposite will promise to undo it in the years ahead—but we will see.

The Budget delivered badly needed tax reforms ducked for too long by previous Chancellors. Whether it is the pragmatic reform in front of us today or ensuring that everyone driving on the roads contributes to their upkeep, these reforms are what it takes to keep cutting waiting lists, cutting borrowing and cutting energy bills, and I commend them and this Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Torsten Bell

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Following the Budget, a furious Labour voter, 30 years old, texted me to say, “I am furious about the salary sacrifice thing. I give up a lot of things to put 20% of my salary into my pension. That’s going to cost me almost two grand a year for being responsible.” Why are the Government so keen on punishing savers?

[Torsten Bell]

We are taking a pragmatic approach to reforming pension contributions made via salary sacrifice, the costs of which are set nearly to triple to £8 billion between 2017 and the end of this decade. The case for change was made powerfully by a previous Chancellor:

“The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary…and pay much lower tax… That is unfair”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 907.]

So said Baron Hammond of Runnymede.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Torsten Bell

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

In any circumstances, the trustees would need to agree to a surplus release, so they are welcome to say to their employer: we are only going to agree to it on the basis of a change to something that the employer holds the cards over. I am happy to discuss that with the right hon. Member further, and there may be other schemes that are in a similar situation.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The way in which the Minister is talking about insurance buy-out suggests that, in the Government’s mind, insurance buy-out is still in some way a gold standard. Can he reassure the House that he is seeking to flatten the playing field, such that the increased choice available to defined-benefit pension schemes will mean that for perpetuals who run on—such as OMERS, which started off as the Ontario municipal employees retirement system and is now worth 140 billion Canadian dollars—there is as much safety in superfunds as there is in insurance buy-out?

[Torsten Bell]

I shall come on directly to the question of superfunds, which I know the hon. Member has a long-standing interest in. There is obviously a distinction between closed and open defined-benefit schemes, which I think is relevant to the point he is raising. It is also important for trustees to have a range of options.

Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Torsten Bell

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I am glad to hear about my hon. Friend’s previous role, and it is encouraging to see what charities representing older people have put out over the last few hours. As I said earlier, Age UK has said that this is the right thing to do and that it will bring much-needed reassurance for older people and their families.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I appreciate that the Minister did not get a chance to spend long on the Back Benches—such has been his accelerated rise up the ministerial pole—but would he like to spare a thought for his former Back-Bench colleagues and join me in thanking and congratulating the small band of Labour Back Benchers who went public, broke cover and opposed this dreadful policy?

[Torsten Bell]

I agree that we should welcome all Labour Back Benchers, because they are the people going through the Lobbies every day to keep in place a Labour Government who are saving public services, taking tough but fair decisions on tax—decisions that are opposed by all the Opposition parties—rescuing our public services and driving down poverty. That is what a Labour Government is about, and that is what everyone on the Labour Benches agrees on.

Mansion House Accord

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Torsten Bell

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Some 5,500 defined-benefit schemes have £1.6 trillion-worth of assets. The trouble is that the regulatory environment is skewed toward buying an insurance policy at the end of that journey. In order to change the way in which trustees and fund managers invest, the Minister has to change the end state. What discussions has he had with the Pensions Regulator and the Association of British Insurers about changing that particular game?

[Torsten Bell]

We have discussed some of these issues in the past, and I look forward to the conversations that I am sure we will have in future, not least around the pension schemes Bill. It is true that for many in the industry, buy-out of their defined-benefit scheme is the end point they are looking to reach, and the number that can reach that point has risen significantly in the recent past as more schemes have moved into surplus. Our job is to provide a range of options for those DB schemes. We have discussed the superfund regime that we will bring forward regulations on through the pension schemes Bill. We have also talked in the last few months about the role of surplus release, which can benefit both employers who want to make investments but also scheme members. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that there are a range of options available to schemes, and they can take the one that is in the best interests of their members.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Torsten Bell

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK international investment summit 2024 on levels of foreign investment.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

Increasing investment in the UK, both public and private, is the Government’s absolute priority. It is the route to restarting badly needed productivity and wage growth. As the hon. Member will know, at the international investment summit, companies committed to a record-breaking £63 billion-worth of investment, which is set to help to create around 30,000 jobs.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I particularly thank him for saying that investment is the Government’s top priority, because the Government announced on 17 October that they had secured this £63 billion. We have heard from the Chancellor that she is going to act decisively, so I just want to check her track record on that. The Government have had six months and £63 billion. How much money has gone out of the door for those oven-ready projects across the country?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member will be excited to know that the Business Secretary will be announcing in the coming weeks that shovels are already in the ground, or will be going into the ground, for some projects. I am a very good colleague to Ministers, so I am not going to pre-empt that announcement today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lincoln Jopp and Torsten Bell

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

6. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the Pensions Regulator on economic growth.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

The Government are looking across the piece at how the important work of our regulators supports economic growth, and the Pensions Regulator, which oversees the third largest pension system in the world, is no exception to that.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The then pensions Minister, Guy Opperman, said that green-lighting defined benefit pension superfunds was his greatest achievement of lockdown. The unelected Governor of the Bank of England then unhelpfully intervened and said that superfunds would be a risk to financial stability, and as a result the Pensions Regulator has authorised only one pension superfund to come into existence. Can the Minister be a little more specific and tell us what exactly he is going to get the Pensions Regulator to do differently in order to support the growth mission?

[Torsten Bell]

That is an important question. The Pensions Regulator does recognise its important role in supporting growth; indeed, it has statutory duties not just to protect savers but to minimise the impact on the growth of employers. Superfunds have an important role to play in ensuring that we have larger pension funds that are able to invest in a wider range of assets. As the hon. Gentleman says, on an interim basis the Pensions Regulator has authorised one such fund, but we will take measures in the pension schemes Bill to make further progress in this regard.