National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I somewhat understand where the Government are coming from in trying to get rid of salary sacrifice entirely—by the way, it is still available for employees of the House of Commons or the House of Lords for the on-site nursery. One thing that the Government seem to have missed out is that they have not provided a lot of information on how they have reached the figure of £2,000. It feels as if they are looking for £4 billion or £5 billion to pay for things such as getting rid of the two-child limit on universal credit—not child benefit; every child gets child benefit. It feels like a short-term measure, as one of my noble friends has just pointed out, to hit certain policy objectives before the next general election. The challenge here is the long-term consequences of where people are putting into their pensions today. The other thing the Government do not seem to have considered is that it is not usually employees who decide the percentage that they are required to contribute to the salary sacrifice scheme. That is normally decided by the employer.

More generally, we are starting to see this awful approach of people on rather modest earnings reducing the amount of money they put into a pension for the future, with all the knock-on costs that other noble Lords have pointed to, but I would go further. How much money is paid towards housing costs and similar is increasing at a significant rate, so it becomes this odd sort of choice where people are trying to do the right thing. Admittedly, this may currently benefit lots of people. That is why Amendment 1 is so important, instead of “How can I take from Peter to pay Paul?” We know the other significant cost of pension tax relief is to make sure that we do not have doctors and consultants reducing their number of hours. So those sorts of policy changes have already been made, and this Government decided not to do that, even though it applies to bankers and all the other people who earn significant amounts of money.

Before Report, I think it is worth the Government setting out in more detail where they got their figures from and why they have ended up at this point instead of just, fairly glibly, saying this will not affect earners. We need more detail. The information put forward by HMRC is basically an insult to everybody reading it by trying to suggest that somehow it gives us a proper tax impact and information notice. It really does not. If we approached this in a more evidence-based way, there would start to be more support and understanding of what the Government are trying to achieve. The Government are trying to find some more money, but at the moment it feels as if they are hitting younger people, people still at certain parts of their career who are already stretched, and this is the way that they are able to make a contribution to their future. As has already been pointed out, it may not be so good for higher rate—and that is okay; people make policy choices when they vote for parties, although, as my noble friend Lord Leight of Hurley pointed out, this was not in the manifesto. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could commit to a more detailed assessment to share with the Committee before we return to this on Report.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I support the Bill. It is an eminently reasonable approach to the difficult financial situation in which we found ourselves when the Labour Government took office. No one likes increases in taxation—it is easy to say “No, no, no”—but given the outcome of the election, some increase in taxation was required.

I listened to the debate with interest, including the points raised on student loans in relation to Amendments 3 and 16. I do not understand it, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister does and that he can give a satisfactory response.

I am a bit concerned when people talk about the Bill “penalising” people. Taking away an advantage struggles to be a penalty. The idea of salary sacrifice makes no sense; it is regulatory arbitrage and a sort of kludge that has no real justification. It is also unnecessary. The idea that the pension system will suffer greatly from the removal of this particular tax relief is fanciful. Some people regard the golden age of pensions as having been 10, 20 or 30 years ago; virtually no one then had salary sacrifice and yet schemes boomed and people saved for retirement. We cannot sustain an argument that providing an adequate pension for most people requires this form of salary sacrifice, particularly when £2,000 is being allowed.

As I said at Second Reading, I disagree with the idea that this is, in some way, a mortal blow to pensions— I may exaggerate slightly, but there was continual suggestion that this was a severe blow to people’s attempt to provide themselves with a decent pension. It is interesting that people who are arguing to keep this salary sacrifice are those who, at the same time, oppose the triple lock, and yet the triple lock is doing far more than this would do for people on low incomes to secure an adequate income in the future, so I do not accept that argument about impact.

The important issue is that this bit of tax relief on pensions should be seen in the context of the overall tax relief on pensions. What is the right level overall of providing relief through the tax system for pension provision? We all know it is substantial; it is enormous. If you count all the different forms it could take, it comes to about £90 billion. When the scheme has matured, this will take away £2.5 billion. That is why I said at Second Reading that it is marginal; it is not crucial for the future of pensions.

The issue of tax relief on pensions is controversial. Think tanks love a report on tax relief on pensions. None of them is proposing an increase in tax relief on pensions, yet this is the way that we are heading. The Government’s figures—which no one has disputed—suggests that more and more people will seek more and more salary sacrifice to get more and more tax relief on pensions. Yet when the think tanks look at these issues, they say, “Well, no, it should be targeted towards the lower paid”. If anyone thinks that this will cause problems—I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; I think the Liberal Democrats have supported, or toyed with, the idea of having a flat-rate tax relief on pensions—I suggest that moving to a flat-rate tax relief on pension contributions will cause an absolute nightmare.

There is one point here that I accept. My noble friend the Minister can take it as a helpful suggestion rather than a criticism, but the use of the term “higher earner” could have been judged better. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I have a spreadsheet, which calculates the impact that people suggest this measure is going to have. Of course, the 2% and 8% feature means that there is a kink in the line of the relief that you get from salary sacrifice because, up to a certain level, you pay 8% contributions through national insurance and you are getting the relief at 8%. Then, after that, it is 2%. It is not that the Government are seeking out people to charge more money; it is the structure of the system.

Let us look at the figures. I sometimes have problems in these debates when other speakers quote figures because it is difficult to understand them without seeing them in writing with some explanation. I think that, in general, there should be a ban on quoting figures in these sorts of debate. However, I am going to quote some figures. The median level of contributions to a pension scheme is 5%—that is, between 4% and 6%—on median earnings below £40,000. Now let us take the higher figures: someone paying employee contributions of 6% with earnings of £40,000. They are using salaries in full on their contributions. For them, the change will be an extra £32 a year. Those are the figures we are talking about for those on median earnings and those on median contributions.

As has been mentioned, bonus sacrifice is clearly a separate issue. This is where the legislation is required. It is being exploited in these circumstances. The bonus should be enough. The bonus is of great value. Some people in the City get vast bonuses. The idea of using that money to exploit this illogical tax relief through salary sacrifice is abhorrent.

I support the legislation. The term “higher earnings” could have been handled better but the whole issue—people on median earnings paying very little more and complicating the system in order to remove basic rate taxpayers; perhaps my noble friend the Minister can tell us about the impact it would have on income—has been over-egged; that was, I think, the phrase I used before. This is an eminently reasonable measure to address the country’s financial problems.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that he cannot see the sense in this. Why do we have this incentive in the tax system? The answer is that it is the role of government to incentivise good behaviours, which include saving for your retirement, trying to climb the ladder and trying to do better for yourself, not least because, in so doing, you reduce your reliance on the state in later life. That is the sense of the salary sacrifice process.

This Government have perpetrated a series of attacks on youngsters at the start of their careers, graduates and people making a start in their working lives. The Renters’ Rights Act has driven up rents. The Employment Rights Act has made it harder for businesses to take a chance on somebody who may be unqualified or changing role. The Government are putting youngsters into unemployment with the jobs tax. Now this slim Bill will add many more cases—I am going to list them in a minute—of intergenerational unfairness. Let nobody say that Labour is on the side of the youngsters who want to get on.

--- Later in debate ---

I ask the Minister to consider carefully not just the wording of these amendments themselves but what they are signalling to the Government about this policy and the Bill, and whether we really should be doing this and rushing it through at this time.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I spend most of my time in these debates about tax relief on pensions defending the existing system, because the people I tend to mix with regard that tax relief as grossly unfair. It obviously gives far more to the higher paid than the lower paid, and that is why there is widespread discussion of having flat-rate tax relief on pensions. If we were starting from scratch, I think we could do that, but we are not. We have to start from where we are.

Where we are is in having extremely high levels of, effectively, government subsidy for people to save for retirement, but that begs the question: what is the right level of tax relief for pensions? Does it just happen to be that we have alighted at the correct level, or is that an issue we are not allowed to discuss? Putting words into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, he seems to be adopting the argument: “The more the merrier—let’s increase it by even more”. No, there is a genuine question here. What is the right level of tax relief to encourage people to save for their retirements? It is a reasonably practical debate and, on this side, we have come to the conclusion, possibly as an interim measure, that it should be a bit lower than it is currently. That certainly does not justify the doom and gloom about this particular change—I have made my point several times.

I am no longer a small business person, but for 30 years I was and I employed people who had multiple jobs. It is not a new issue. There is nothing new about the idea of employers having to cope with the complications of the national insurance system for people who have multiple jobs, particularly where, even with two jobs, their total income is more than the £1,250 that it is at present. It is not a new issue that employers are going to have to deal with. In principle, there is an additional complication; they have to sort out where the £2,000 limit applies. However, it is reasonable to expect employers to undertake those tasks. To be honest, I do not think that an ice-cream salesman is really a genuine example, but I may be wrong.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I take my territorial designation from Gorleston-on-Sea. When I was a boy, there was nothing better when the sun was out than going down to Della Spina’s, the ice-cream place. It is not just about ice cream; there are stately homes and all sorts of things that work with the weather. That is why I chose the example of the umbrella salesman or the ice-cream vendor. There is a whole part of the UK economy that depends on the weather. We have the most unpredictable weather, there are the most turbulent income and costs associated with that, and that boils down into variable emoluments. It is not just the market gardener or the farmer; it is the people involved in hospitality or whatever. To say that it is trivial demeans the pubs, the restaurants, the stately homes and that wider part of the visitor economy, which is particularly visited on the coast and in coastal communities. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to reflect on the somewhat dismissive way in which he put that huge part to one side. Millions of people work in these sectors; they would be disadvantaged by the Bill and that needs to be recognised.

[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.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, as with the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a comment on what he thought was Lib Dem policy; it might be—I am just not sure. We have discussed simply kicking out all this complexity and having a flat rate of relief on pensions. After listening to the last debate, I think that that has probably accumulated a lot of votes from around this Room, because the complexity that we have had described under this group of amendments is absolutely extraordinary. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referred to the banana skins, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, talked about it being a nightmare. I am troubled that all of this is being left to consultation with the industry and to future regulation and future guidance, as if it can all be absolutely sorted with a bit of quiet attention. But we have heard the problems of how you deal with the many cases where people have multiple employers.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, made it clear that it is a relatively small handful of people who at present have to be dealt with through the Department of Work and Pensions to make sure that there is not a complexity. However, this would now apply to all kinds of people across a very wide range of activities and income. Trying to deal with the complexity of all these measures and delaying that has got us very disturbed. It is a bad principle for legislation. It is not that there is not a role for regulation and guidance, but that essentially should just be doing the finesse on a policy that has been clarified, whether it is in primary legislation, through evidence put before Parliament or through Statements made by the Ministers.

I think we have a real concern that this is going to turn out to be absolutely unworkable. The consequences of that, both for public finances and for individual decisions made by people, probably means that this legislation will collapse at some point. We ask the Minister to go back to the department and make it clear that clarity is absolutely necessary. If there are problems here that can never be reasonably and sensibly resolved, they should be recognised at this stage.