Baroness Neville-Rolfe:

Moved by Baroness Neville-Rolfe

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “tax” insert “at the higher or additional rate”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.

My Lords, I am pleased to be opening our deliberations on Report by speaking to a powerful group of amendments tabled by not only the Opposition but noble Lords from across the Chamber. This group in many respects shows the scale and breadth of the concerns that are held by noble Lords with respect to this Bill.

My first amendments in this group seek to exempt basic rate taxpayers from this policy. I am grateful to noble Lords from across the House who supported Amendment 1 in Committee and who recognise the seriousness of the issue that it seeks to address. This Bill is a mistaken Bill. It will limit incentives to save into pensions and reduce pensions adequacy. In our lively Committee discussions, Peers with business and tax experience and knowledge of pensions and payroll exposed its failings. The responses from the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, did not allay our concerns. On the contrary, they reinforced them.

The Government have been clear in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes and in Statements made in this House and the other place that this policy is intended to target higher earners. That is the stated purpose and the political justification, but it is not the reality. The Society of Pension Professionals has told us that around one-quarter of those who use salary sacrifice and who will be caught by these changes are basic rate taxpayers. When this was put to the Minister, he did not dispute it. In fact, he went further. He told us that around 74% of basic rate taxpayers currently using salary sacrifice will be protected by the £2,000 cap. That is the current position and, as far as I know, does not allow for wage inflation in the period before the measure takes effect. That could increase the number of basic rate taxpayers who are affected.

The new arrangements take effect in 2029-30, conveniently helping the Government with £4.7 billion of revenue to satisfy their fiscal rules in that crucial year. However, the Minister’s exclamation means that 26% of basic rate taxpayers will not be protected. More than one in four basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be hit. The Minister also acknowledged that some people earning under £30,000 would be affected. Let us pause on that. This is a policy presented as targeting high earners, yet it will impact workers earning under £30,000. Surely that is, by the Treasury’s own admission, a fundamental contradiction between rhetoric and reality. For a basic rate taxpayer, the 8% national insurance charge represents two-fifths of the value of their income tax relief. In practical terms, the marginal cost of this policy is four times higher for a lower-paid worker than for someone on a higher income. That is a very different definition of a progressive tax. The lower your income, the greater the relative blow.

Our amendment offers the Government a straightforward way out. By exempting basic rate taxpayers from the cap, we would align the policy with its stated objective. If the aim is to target higher earners, let us do precisely that. Let us not drag lower and middle earners into a measure that they were repeatedly told would not affect them. Lower savings today mean lower retirement incomes tomorrow, and lower retirement incomes tomorrow mean greater reliance on the state. That is neither fiscally prudent nor socially responsible.

This is closely related to another of my amendments in the group, Amendment 7, which would require that regulations made under Clauses 1 and 2 should explain the basis on which the Treasury considers certain employed earners to be higher earners for the purposes of the national insurance charge and how the contribution limit reflects that assessment in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This amendment, which we also tabled in Committee, received a wholly inadequate response. I asked the Minister who in the Government’s view were higher earners. I asked for a number. Was it people on £50,000 a year or £60,000 a year? The Minister refused to give one. Indeed, he did not engage with the point at all. Remember, some basic rate taxpayers will be affected by this policy. They are not higher earners. The Government should be honest about that.

Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that when regulations are forthcoming—and there are a lot of them provided for in the Bill as it stands—the Treasury will do the right thing and explain how the regulations meet the policy intent of affecting only higher earners. It would not impose costs on the Treasury or affect how the policy works but would ensure that we get an explanation of how lower and medium-income workers are to be protected. That is the Government’s stated aim. If the Minister is confident that regulations will meet the Government’s own test, he should accept this amendment.

The final one of my amendments to which I wish to speak, Amendment 29, concerns SMEs and charities. Throughout the passage of this Bill, and in debates far beyond it, many of us have warned about the cumulative burden this Government are placing on smaller employers. Think about the Employment Rights Act, the minimum wage hikes, the spiralling business rates, U-turns and uncertainty, compliance and regulatory costs and, indeed, the previous NICs hike. The list goes on. Each item is a policy that damages small and medium-sized enterprises in our country. They include family firms, start-ups, local manufacturers, high-street shops, care providers and charity and community employers. They often do not have in-house tax teams or compliance departments. They do not have margins that allow them quietly to absorb new fiscal shocks. Many do not offer salary sacrifice, but some do and more may do so now that it is more in the public consciousness thanks to this change.

My amendment simply says that, where the employers are a small or medium-sized enterprise, or a charity or a social enterprise, the provisions of this Clause should not apply. If the Government’s intent is to truly address behaviours concentrated in large corporates then they should have no difficulty accepting that smaller employers ought to be shielded.

In Committee, the Minister sought to reassure noble Lords by stating that only 33% of small businesses offer salary sacrifice arrangements. One in three small businesses potentially exposed to the new cost and to the new complexity is a very substantial proportion of those organisations that make up the backbone of the British economy. Even for those not currently operating such schemes, the signal sent by this Bill is clear: providing pension flexibility or innovative remuneration structures carries risk. At a time when we should be encouraging pension saving and responsible employer contributions, we are creating disincentives.

We are already seeing rising insolvency rates among small firms, business confidence is plummeting and unemployment remains stubbornly high. Against that backdrop, this is not the moment to extend further costs and uncertainty to smaller employers and to charities delivering essential social goods. In Committee, I did not feel the Minister fully grappled with that reality. I hope that, today, he can demonstrate that the Treasury has reflected further on the cumulative impact on SMEs and charities, and explain what assessment has been made of the real-world consequences. If the Government truly want to stand with small businesses and the voluntary sector, they should have no hesitation in supporting that exemption amendment.

I want to speak briefly to amendments in the names of other noble lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has tabled an amendment which would raise the cap to £5,000, which we support. This is a sensible proposal which would prevent some lower and middle-income earners being caught by this policy, and address some of our concerns around the cost that this policy would impose on SMEs. The Government should seriously consider an uprating mechanism, as proposed in my other amendments in this group, but this would be a good start. If, in due course, the noble Baroness is minded to test the opinion of the House on this question, we will be pleased to support her.

The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley would exempt salary sacrifice pension contributions over the limit from being included in student loan repayment definitions. This is an eminently sensible amendment which would help to protect those who are repaying student loans. As noble Lords will know from the extensive media and parliamentary coverage, graduates on the plan 2 loan are being hit particularly hard. This amendment would help to limit the blow that this policy would otherwise exact upon them. The student loan repayment arrangements are very unsatisfactory, as I know from talking to members of our own team. We must not further penalise people for striving, and the amendment would help, in a concrete way, those graduates who are trying to save into a pension. Should my noble friend wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter, we will be pleased to support him.

For the sake of brevity, there are some amendments in this large group which I have not spoken to, such as that in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. I thank them for their engagement with the Bill throughout its stages and for their proposals today, all of which speak to the same concerns. The Minister has left a lot to be desired after Committee. We shall be listening carefully to his reply today. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment in this first group. Needless to say, I agree with everything my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said from the front bench. This Bill is a most unfortunate Bill. It clearly has come about because the Chancellor has said to her officials, “I need £5 billion, can you find it now?”, and out of the bottom drawer has come a Bill which has been rejected by so many others. I do not think it was in the manifesto; it is just an opportunistic grab of people’s savings.

The Bill has most unfortunate side effects. As we will show in later amendments, it will not raise the £5 billion that the OBR has been led to believe it will. It will fall far short of that. Proof of that, of course, is in the fact that even the OBR recognises that that £5 billion will fall by half the following year, as people work out what is going on and take evasive action. The reason it will not raise £5 billion is that people will work out, well in advance of it coming into 2029, that there are simple ways round this Bill that already have been identified, and therefore will take pre-emptive action. We are stuck with a Bill that does not work, is not needed and, workers having been penalised by the national insurance increase, penalises savers. In particular, for some bizarre reason, it penalises students who have taken out loans. This is not a good time to be making these proposals.

The Minister, a few minutes ago, suggested that the Chancellor believes that people will be £1,000 a year better off by the time of the next election. Will they really? The Joseph Rowntree Foundation—no friends of mine—has said that when housing costs from rent and mortgage payments were factored into those figures, total disposable income would have risen by just £40 a year. No pandemic to rely on, no Brexit, no nothing—that is just what it is: £40 a year.

This is not the time to impose further hardship on people, in particular students. One benefit of a pension salary sacrifice can be to reduce earnings liable to national insurance for student loan repayment purposes, as the liability to repay student loans is, for employees, based on their earnings liable to national insurance. Frankly, there remains a lack of clarity about how the policy interacts with student loan repayment calculations, which are based on national insurance definitions of earnings. If salary sacrifice pension contributions above the cap are treated as earnings for NIC purposes, this will have knock-on effects for graduate repayment levels. It will mean higher effective repayments for some borrowers, reduced disposable income and a further distortion of incentives around pension savings. The Government have not yet provided sufficient clarity. My amendments seek to address that situation.

I am grateful to the national press, in particular the Times, for its support of this amendment. I hope later to be able to test the opinion of the House on it, unless the Government feel inclined to agree to it.

My Lords, this is a very large group with a number of issues to address. First, I support my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham in Amendment 1 in this group. I remind the House that the Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that, as of 2025, around 14.6 million working-age people are undersaving for retirement. Many of these individuals will be basic rate taxpayers, though certainly not all, and some will not have access to salary sacrifice arrangements. This amendment would ensure that only higher taxpayers are affected by the proposed £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice schemes. As a result, no basic rate taxpayer would be drawn into what might only be described as a new trap.

In Committee, the noble Lord stated more than once that 74% of employees who pay only the basic rate of tax—currently applicable up to £50,270—and who benefit from a salary sacrifice scheme would be unaffected by the £2,000 limit before the national insurance becomes payable. However, this necessarily means that 26% would be affected, and no figure has been provided for how many people that represents. Percentages alone can be extremely misleading without the underlying numbers. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the House how many employees fall within that 26%, so that we may properly understand the scale of those who stand to be impacted.

This brings me directly to Amendment 7, in asking the Government what the definition of a high earner is. The answer given in Committee was totally noncommittal. May I therefore ask the Minister, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has, to be transparent and provide a clear number? Is the threshold £30,000, £50,000, or is it some other number? I do not think this is too much to ask.

As for Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and others, there are already many students—including my sons—caught by the student loans repayment scheme. To fleece this cohort of individuals even harder seems extraordinary if salary sacrifice payments are considered as part of their income. They will never have a sufficient pension and, no doubt, some future Government will have to pick up the pieces.

Next, I would like to address the size of the cap, which currently would be £2,000. As I have mentioned, the proposed limitation is simply too low. Moreover, it fails to take account of those employees who may, on occasion, receive an unexpected windfall which they wish to contribute to their pension through a salary sacrifice arrangement. Amendment 12 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, provides for a £5,000 cap, which would give employees the opportunity not only to save more towards their retirement but also to avoid a substantial national insurance liability on such a windfall. Provided inflation remains under control, this is a far more realistic and workable figure. While I would prefer the figure to be £10,000, as in amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I fear that that is a step too far.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and those in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Altrincham both address another issue: the quiet but persistent impact of fiscal drag. This is one of the most insidious ways in which Governments raise revenue without taking any overt action. With such a modest cap set out in the Bill, it risks being rapidly eroded by inflation, placing an unnecessary burden on basic rate taxpayers—precisely the group for whom pension saving is the most vital to support. I very much support those amendments.

Finally, Amendments 16 and 27 concern the SME and charity sectors. Last week in Committee, I mentioned many recent legislative changes that these entities have had to face, including the cost of energy, which now appears to be heading even further in the wrong direction. Between Committee stage and now, this has become very personal, as one of my children working in the retail industry was made redundant yesterday due to all these excessive costs. This Bill has not yet hit. I truly wonder if the company will survive. The Bill is, surely, another nail in the coffin for many more employees and, I suspect, a number of companies and charities themselves. They simply do not have the wherewithal to weather these storms, yet this Government insist on piling on ever more expenses, not only through greater national insurance payments but substantial additional associated administration costs. They will need to hire external resources to handle this difficult and pernicious legislation. It will not surprise noble Lords to know that I very much support these amendments.

My Lords, I speak today in support of all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 12 and 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and other Peers, and my own Amendments 14 and 27. I would have added my name to the noble Baroness’s amendments, but sadly I was a bit slow, and her popularity beat me. I remind the House of my registered interests as an owner of an SME and an employer.

Both these sets of amendments seek to increase the limit in separate ways. As I have spoken about at both stages of the Bill, the proposal mainly impacts middle-income earners. If the Government were to accept the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, this would allow all basic rate taxpaying workers making regular contributions to salary sacrifice not to have to pay NIC on their contributions. Also, it would encourage and give flexibility for workers on different salaries to increase their pension contributions above the 5% of auto-enrolment without being penalised and having to pay NIC on these increased contributions. Auto-enrolment is such an easy way for employees to raise their pension contributions and show flexibility.

I have seen in my own business that employees on a range of salaries from £30,000 to £50,000 per annum do increase and decrease their pension contributions depending on their current situation. This could be, for example, before starting a family or when they have a salary increase, small bonuses are paid, or they are moving closer to retirement. Accepting this limit will encourage people to save for their long-term retirement and give them flexibility in their contributions.

I have resubmitted my amendment as a suggestion and a compromise between the Government’s limit of £2,000 and the proposed new limit of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, of £5,000. My amendment seeks to increase the limit to £5,213.15 as it stands and is linked to the upper threshold of national insurance, at 5% of that amount.

I asked the Minister in Committee if there was any basis to the £2,000 limit other than the researchers’ suggestion to employers in the research commissioned by HM Revenue & Customs on attitudes to salary sacrifice, released in January 2024. Having reviewed the research, it appears that £2,000 is an arbitrary figure, if in some way linked to the median salary. The researchers contacted only 51 employers, of whom only 41 offered salary sacrifice. I believe that the total number of employers who offer salary sacrifice is around 290,000. Surely, only 51 employers is not a significant sample on which to base such an important change to the tax and pension systems.

My proposed limit is 5% of the national insurance upper earnings limit, and it is directly linked with auto-enrolment employer pension contributions of 5%. As I previously said, this links to a figure that is already in the taxation system. This limit would automatically adjust if NICs thresholds were changed.

In the spring update Statement on Tuesday, the Chancellor referred on many occasions to workers and being fair to them. Surely, it is only fair that all workers on a certain amount pay only 2% on their pension contributions in terms of NIC and that a certain few do not have to pay 8% on their pension contributions due to their salary being between £40,000 and £50,270. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, has already asked for that number to be clarified. By increasing this limit, all employees would pay only 2% on their pension; employers would continue to pay 15% on all contributions. That is the vast Majority of the tax—another burden on employers.

I hope the Minister will consider my amendment during the research on the implementation of this Bill, as I believe it provides some simplification to the change to salary sacrifice that the Bill is proposing, bringing fairness to a group of employees on modest salaries who are not being penalised for making pension contributions via auto-enrolment.

We will discuss later, in other groups, the complexity this Bill could bring to payroll systems and HR admin. If you were to treat salary sacrifice on pension payments in the same way that national insurance is calculated, this would address many of the complexities that arose during Committee. I very much hope that the Government will accept Amendments 12 and 26 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but, if not, that they will consider my amendment as a fair and practical alternative for workers making pension contributions under salary sacrifice.

My Lords, I first need to declare my interests as a non-executive director of a pensions administration company and as a board adviser to an auto-enrolment master trust. This is a very large group of amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her excellent introduction. The 15 amendments in this group cover a whole range of different issues, and I will try to be as brief as possible.

I start with Amendment 1, to which I have added my name, which seeks to tease out the Government’s actual policy on pension incentives. As the Minister and other noble Lords have said, around one-quarter of basic rate taxpayers whose employers are using salary sacrifice will be impacted. They will have lower take-home pay and/or lower pension contributions and, clearly, less incentive to pay more into a pension. Therefore, they have more risk of being poor in later life.

We still do not have an explanation for this limit being chosen, and the idea of limiting it to higher rate taxpayers makes enormous sense from the point of view of pension policy. Even a small number of people who are earning less than £30,000 will be caught by this. We have no explanation. I hope that the Minister might be able to help us understand where the £2,000 figure came from and why it is acceptable to hit the pensions and take-home pay of these lower earners.

Any proposal that we have heard over the years—and there have been many—for reforming the incentives for pensions have tried to suggest making the incentives for lower earners better. This Bill does the opposite. With a progressive tax system, using tax relief as an incentive mechanism will always give more generous relief to higher earners than lower earners who are on lower tax. At the moment, the availability of salary sacrifice helps to even that up a bit. If somebody is on a 20% tax rate, for every £4 they put into a pension, the basic rate tax relief gives them an extra £1. That is a 25% uplift. For a 40% taxpayer, for every £3 they put into a pension, tax relief gives them an extra £2. That is a 66% uplift. If you add in the 8% national insurance relief on top of the 20% basic tax relief, these lower or moderate earners will get a 38% uplift. If we take that away, they are back to 25%. I cannot explain how that is consistent with the Government’s aim of improving pension outcomes and helping lower earners or ordinary workers to have a better future. They will have lower take-home pay and/or lower pension contributions as a result of this policy. I understand that national insurance relief has always been a bit of an anomaly, but it is there, so taking it away makes things worse. Higher earners are only losing 2%. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment, but if the noble Baroness chooses to test the opinion of the House, I will support her.

Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, to which I have also added my name, talks about the student loan problem and seeks to find a way to exempt students who are contributing more than £2,000 from higher repayments or lower take-home pay as a result of this policy. I would be grateful if the Minister could help us understand the impact on someone with a student loan who is paying more than £2,000 and will say what the Government’s proposals for mitigating are. If we do not have any such proposals, I hope the House will support the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 12 and related Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seek to address this problem in a different way by increasing the £2,000 limit to £5,000. These are both arbitrary numbers. There is no specific justification in the modelling of what pension contributions are in salary sacrifice schemes. My Amendment 13 was trying to raise the limit to £10,000, which would mean catching even fewer people but more higher earners. I accept that there is not enough support in the House for going as far as £10,000, which is the minimum contribution that the highest earners can make under the annual limit, but I would certainly support a change to £5,000.

On Amendment 27, which has just been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, I understand the logic of trying to tie this to the national insurance upper earnings limit. I would support it, but I can see that the support is not widespread. In any case, adding this would make the whole administration system much more difficult to understand and complex. At least a round number of £5,000 is something that people can aim at and see whether they are over it.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, mentioned employers taking evasive action to avoid this before 2029. Will the Minister say what is the rush? Why, just a few weeks after announcing this, do we have this primary legislation which raises huge numbers of questions and poses such significant risks to the pension system? What evasive action can employers take? The most likely is that they will significantly reduce their pension contributions if they are not already at the minimum, or just stop salary sacrifice altogether because the costs of changing this system from the current salary sacrifice payroll provision and introducing new provisions will be significant.

This policy goes against everything the Government have rightly said they would like to achieve with their pension reforms. It makes the position of lower earners worse, it makes the pensions of lower earners worse, and it is likely to make overall pension provision worse throughout the economy. I hope that the Government might think again on some of these issues.

My Lords, I support Amendments 5 and 21 tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, which rightly shine a light on the way in which this policy particularly benights graduates who are starting out in their careers. The Government have perpetrated the lie that the restrictions on salary sacrifice will affect only the fat cats, those with the broadest shoulders, whatever that means, the higher earners, another nebulous term, and certainly not hard-working families or those who are paid hourly. It is just not true. It is an example of Labour’s mis-selling, which is why I support Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The Daily Telegraph reports that 3.3 million employees will be affected. The Times accuses the Government of wilfully obscuring the effects of their proposals on employees who are left behind after the real fat cats have run for the border.

By far the most affected group are youngsters at the start of their careers—graduates, people making a start on their working lives. They are already burdened by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which has driven up their rents, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which has made it harder for businesses to take a chance on someone starting out. Graduate programmes have been bombed out by the jobs tax and dynamited by the rise in the minimum wage which reduces the incentive for employees to train up the newbies. Now we have a further insult and assault on Generation Z with the proposals of this slim Bill with fat consequences in an unthinking aggravation of intergenerational unfairness. Let nobody say that Labour is on the side of youngsters who want to get on. Even the OBR has twigged what we on these Benches have been saying for months: that the cumulative effect of all these issues is damaging incentives to work and harming those trying to climb the ladder to success.

At Second Reading, I gave the example of my daughter’s boyfriend who has a good job in the West End. He is no fat cat. He lives in a flatshare in Brixton with people he does not know, but his employer has recognised his hard work and, importantly, the value he brings to the business, so he was given a bonus of £17,000. Of that, he kept less than £6,000—a marginal rate of 71%—not just because of the tax, but on account of his student loan repayments. I do not know how it has taken so long for the OBR to realise that it does not pay to work. How much can these people be expected to bear? At least he had salary sacrifice to save for a pension for his future to reduce his reliance on the state in later life because, let us face it, employers are still shovelling cash into defined benefit schemes that are not even available to students who have to make do and mend with the less generous defined contribution arrangements instead, but even that has been snatched away by this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has so forensically exposed.

Taken together, these proposals risk salary sacrifice being taken away as a thing, which will damage employers and damage their opportunities to attract and retain the best talent because it will become just too complicated. As the Spectator’s leader last week asked, is it still worth going to university? When the world’s oldest magazine starts questioning the value of higher education, you have to wonder for our economy, our society, the future prosperity of our nation and what it says about aspiration in these islands. As somebody said last week, you used to get something from hard work, a reward for initiative, doing the right thing, but instead everyone is being beaten with a stick.

This incessant tinkering undermines confidence in the pension system itself. Long-term plans cannot be made when the goalposts keep moving. People just conclude, “Saving for a pension just isn’t for me”. The consequence of this lack of trust, which this Government are driving, is that you end up with people investing in Lego sets, Star Wars characters, silver slivers and bitcoin. Try spending those at Tesco. It is bad for everybody, but especially the youngsters starting out. The Government are not on the side of these people. They are the ones who are driving intergenerational unfairness. All students and graduates want is for the Government to give them a break—but instead they are being broken and this Bill is the final straw.

My Lords, I apologise for not speaking earlier in the Bill’s passage. I have only recently become aware of how its provisions bear on freelance workers in the creative industries, and I hope the House will permit me to raise those concerns across the relevant groups. I declare an interest: I have worked both as a freelance editor on short-term contracts and on payroll, and I understand from personal experience how differently this legislation lands, depending on which side of that line a worker falls.

I support the amendments in this group, in particular Amendments 1 and 17, which would exempt basic-rate taxpayers from the cap, and Amendments 14 and 27, which would index the limit to the national insurance upper earnings limit, rather than fixing it at a flat £2,000.

The creative industries are built on short contracts. A set designer or director of photography may work for three or four different employers in a single year, such as a commercial house, a broadcaster or an independent film company, each engagement lasting weeks rather than months. Many of those workers are basic-rate taxpayers. The Government have consistently justified the Bill as targeting higher earners, yet, as we have heard, these are precisely the workers it will catch. Amendments 1 and 17 would correct that directly.

Amendments 14 and 27 address a related problem. A creative worker with a good year followed by a lean year faces a rigid £2,000 cap that takes no account of natural variation in earnings. Indexing the limit to the upper earnings limit would at least ensure that it kept pace with the economy.

Amendments 12, 26 and 13 would raise the cap to £5,000—or £10,000, as we have heard—which would substantially reduce the problem for those with fluctuating incomes, and I support the principle behind them.

Finally, Amendments 4 and 20 would remove from the optional remuneration rules any pension contributions where no cash alternative was offered. For a freelancer on a standard short-term contract, where the pension arrangement is simply a term of engagement, not a personal tax planning choice, that is a straightforward matter of fairness. I urge the House to support these amendments.

I want to contribute, by supporting the Government, a bit of sense to this debate. We have heard so much doom and gloom, but what is the reality? What impact are these measures going to have? I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us.

The first point to understand is that salary sacrifice for pension contributions really makes no sense. It is a form of regulatory arbitrage. It has never made any sense and it is notable that previous Governments have taken away almost all forms of salary sacrifice on other in-work benefits, without forecasting the end of incentives for working. I have always been against it in principle—I would be happy to see it removed entirely, but possibly that might be politically suicidal—but a £2,000 limit seems an entirely reasonable approach to providing some fair incentive without the opportunity for, in truth, gross inequality. We are told that this measure hits the lower paid and not so much the higher paid, but of course the people who make most use of this are people with enormous bonuses. That is where the money is going and these measures will stop that.

Secondly, it is not an essential element in our current pension system. The key question that none of the previous speakers has addressed is: what is the right level of tax incentive for pension saving? That is a proper debate, and it cannot be answered by saying that more is always better. We have to draw up a fair judgment on where, and how far, tax incentives to encourage people to save for retirement should go. It is obvious that, if you reduce tax incentives, there will be an impact on people’s decisions. One impact that it might have is to encourage them to save more, because, if they have a target pension in mind, they will need to save more money than they did previously.

Thirdly, figures are quoted for the impact on individuals, particularly those under the higher-rate threshold. Well, I have a spreadsheet and I have calculated those figures, and, as I said at Second Reading and in Committee, the effect on basic-rate taxpayers on incomes around and above the median level is marginal. What sorts of figures do you think we are being told are going to have such a shattering effect on the pension system? For someone on median earnings, paying the median contribution rate, it is nothing. Maybe, if you earn a bit more towards the tax threshold, it will be something like £40 a year.

Now, nobody likes paying more tax. I could explain that the reason why there is this demand for more taxes is 14 years of mismanagement by the previous Government, but I will leave that to my noble friend. But it does annoy me that so much emphasis is placed on what is essentially a sideshow to the important questions of pension provision that we are going to have to address.

As I think the noble Lord knows, I have enormous sympathy with everything he says, and there is a strong case for reforming and improving the incentives for low earners. However, does he not accept that, if you change for the worse the incentives on the people who earn least, for whom it is most difficult to contribute, there is bound to be an effect at the margin, however large or small the difference is? If your pension is giving you lower take-home pay because something you have is being taken away, that can have only negative consequences. Therefore, there are risks in this proposal as it stands.

I thought I said in my earlier remarks that there will be a marginal effect: I accept that, although we do not actually know what that marginal effect will be. It is all hypothetical at the moment. One thing we do not know from the OBR figures is quite what the reaction will be and how people will adjust their behaviour between now and when this comes in.

I accept the noble Baroness’s point but, as I say, nobody likes paying tax and nobody wants to pay more tax. If you ask people whether they want to pay more tax they say no, but it has to fit in with the Government’s overall financial strategy.

Of course, only some people gain an advantage from salary sacrifice. Many private employers just do not offer it. The number is increasing all the time, which is part of the problem because it is increasing the cost. Nobody in the public sector benefits from salary sacrifice. We can, and will, have an interesting debate about public service pensions, but noble Lords should understand that it is unequal that people in the private sector can take advantage of salary sacrifice but people in the public sector cannot.

My Lords, I thought it might be best to combine standing as a winder and talking for a few moments to the two amendments in this group that are in my name. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who made an incredibly powerful speech to introduce the whole series of amendments in this group. I thank her for signing my two amendments, Amendments 12 and 26. Amendment 26 is the Northern Ireland parallel to Amendment 12, so we need not treat it separately. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Londesborough, for signing my amendments. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, would also have signed them had space been permitted on the Marshalled List.

I also talked very extensively, both at Second Reading and in Committee, and I will try to discipline myself not to repeat those comments, particularly because Speaker after speaker has so fully described the issues that are at stake. I find myself in complete disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which does not happen very often, but I think that the Government will recognise that, for a whole series of political leanings around the House, there is very common ground on this issue.

My Amendment 12, as others have described, would lift that limit on salary sacrifice contributions subject to NICs relief to £5,000 a year. I discussed in detail in Committee why I talked to various people and came to that number, but the key point I want to emphasise—others have made it, but let me make it again—is that it would strongly benefit younger people and quite low earners. We are looking primarily at the second decile of earners, who are probably on their first or second pay rise. They are still low earners and still living a life much more akin to that of a student. They are sharing accommodation and do not yet have mortgages, children or families. Many have, very responsibly, with the nudge that is given by this tax relief, been encouraged to start seriously saving for pensions, well in excess of that £2,000 benchmark that the Government propose.

As these people move on in their lives and acquire children and mortgages, their pension savings drop. Those very early savings that then have a chance to accrue over a working lifetime are very significant in the end result to the quality of pension that they receive. That is why we took an approach that we thought would, in a very simple way, enable this group of people to continue with that incredibly positive behaviour.

In this group, I will certainly support the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will choose to move. I want to make particular reference to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on student loans. It is absolutely essential. The Government have recognised—at least, this is what I understood from the Minister’s responses in Committee and at Second Reading—that the Bill quite unintentionally puts serious additional costs on to graduates. I find it absolutely ridiculous that, having recognised that there is an unintentional impact and that it is problematic, the Government are not correcting it in this Bill. As far as I can understand, they are waiting for some future piece of legislation to make that change.

May I just press the noble Baroness on the point she made about serious additional costs? Would she care to quantify what those serious additional costs are?

Let me refer back to the example I gave in Committee. The noble Lord will be aware, on that additional contribution, that the graduates are paying the 8% additional in NICs but, on top of that, because it pulls them into scope of having to make repayments at the margin, the impact is 17%. It has a huge impact on graduates who are now just beginning to reach the level where they would have anticipated they would start to repay, and they suddenly hit this really serious spike. I think he has seen the numbers that some of the people have sent to us, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation could help him with those numbers if he wants to look at them. The Government, I think, recognise that problem but my answer is to fix it.

I think what the noble Baroness has just explained is that for those people with the greatest earnings potential, which our nation needs, there is an arbitrary cap on aspiration. There is a point which is just not worth going past. That is not just damaging for them, their families and their futures; it is also bad for the economy. That, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, is where the prejudice lies: it is on the individual, but the whole of society suffers by having the cliff edge effect that the noble Baroness is referring to.

On this issue of students, I really think this is unintentional, taking the Minister and others at their words. That is why accepting the Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and correcting the issue now is something that I consider to be very important.

As I said, there is no need for me to keep speaking. I have made it clear that I will support quite a number of the other amendments in this group if they are moved, because collectively they address a fundamental problem. I appreciate all the comments that have been made in support of the amendments in my name.

My Lords, I support broadly all the amendments in this group, but specifically Amendments 12 and 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to which I added my name. I will be genuinely brief. These amendments, by raising the cap to £5,000 per annum, would address a core problem in the Bill: the limiting or deterring of the so-called moderate earners we have heard about from contributing sufficiently to their pension pots, which, as we already know, are nowhere near sufficient for the vast Majority to fund their retirements. We are talking about retirement periods of 25 to 30 years if demographic trends continue. As we have heard, this includes many in the early stages of their working lives who need to get into the habit of contributing to pensions at the formative stages of their careers.

I remind the House of a stat that came out in Committee. On average, our current workforce will outlive their pension savings by eight to nine years, and this funding gap is widening year by year. Clause 1 is, in effect, raiding pensions to keep the Treasury within its fiscal rules in three years’ time. It is another crude example of kicking the can down the road, leaving another generation to sort out another widening deficit.

I was interested to hear the comments from the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Ashcombe. They raised some pertinent questions over the revenue-raising forecasts. I also fear that the Treasury has wildly underestimated the level of accelerated salary sacrifice over the next three years in the run-up to these measures. I have witnessed a number of business plans in companies that I am involved in; I should, of course, declare my interests as set out in the register.

To conclude, I fully endorse the excellent opening comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the comments we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I encourage your Lordships to support their amendments should they decide to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this first group of amendments. I turn first to Amendments 1 and 17 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, which seek to exempt basic rate taxpayers from the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, noted, the vast Majority—74%—of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be unaffected by the changes in this Bill. Specifically, three-quarters of those earning up to £50,270 and using salary sacrifice will be entirely protected, and that rises to 95% when looking at those earning £30,000 or less who use this mechanism to save into their pensions. The minority of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above £2,000 will continue to benefit from employee national insurance relief worth £160 a year in addition to the full income tax relief they receive on their pension contributions. Half of those basic rate taxpayers contributing above £2,000 will face an additional national insurance contribution liability of less than £50 a year.

Exempting basic rate taxpayers would also be exceptionally difficult to operate in practice and would add considerable additional administrative burden on to employers. That is because, unlike income tax, national insurance does not operate on an annual aggregated basis, nor does it determine liability by reference to an individual’s final tax position. An individual cannot be confirmed as a basic rate taxpayer until their full income position is reconciled at the end of the tax year, taking account of potentially multiple employments and other sources of income. To apply a tax band-based exemption, employers would be required to undertake year-end reconciliations across employments and account for other sources of income as well that sit wholly outside the design of the national insurance contributions system. This would represent a fundamental departure from established payroll processes, imposing significant complexity, cost and risk on to employers and payroll providers.

Amendments 16 and 29, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, seek exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and social enterprises. Exempting small and medium-sized enterprises and charities in the way proposed by the Amendment would add considerable complexity to the tax system and would not be proportionate to the limited impact this policy is expected to have on those businesses. The changes in this Bill primarily affect larger employers, which are significantly more likely to operate salary sacrifice arrangements and to have employees contributing above the £2,000 cap.

Small businesses are significantly less likely to offer salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Only 28% of employees in SMEs use salary sacrifice for pension contributions, compared to 39% in larger firms. When it comes to contributions above the £2,000 cap, the difference is even clearer. Only 10% of employees in SMEs make pension contributions through salary sacrifice that exceed the value of the cap, compared to 18% of employees of larger firms. This underlines that the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice are concentrated in bigger firms, not smaller firms.

In practice, the changes in this Bill will level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors, ensuring that the national insurance contribution advantages of salary sacrifice are not disproportionately concentrated among employees in big firms. More widely, the Government recognise the importance of supporting small businesses and charities alike.

This leads me to Amendments 7 and 23 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. These amendments seek clarity on the basis on which the Government consider certain employed earners to be higher earners for the purposes of the national insurance charge and how the contributions limit reflects that assessment. The Explanatory Notes for this Bill set out clearly that the Government’s objective is to limit the national insurance contributions relief available to higher earners on employer pension contributions made through salary sacrifice, while protecting lower-earning pension savers. These changes are about fairness and consistency across the labour market.

Additionally, groups who are most likely to be undersaving for retirement, such as those on the national minimum wage and the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers are completely excluded from using salary sacrifice altogether. The cap we are introducing through this Bill will protect the majority of basic rate taxpayers using salary sacrifice and ensure that the cost of national insurance relief on pension salary sacrifice is put on a fiscally sustainable footing.

I now turn to Amendments 5 and 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, which seek to exempt salary sacrifice pension contributions over the £2,000 limit from being included in the definition of earnings used to calculate student loan repayments for employees. Student loan repayments are calculated using the same earnings base as class 1 national insurance contributions. As a result, salary sacrifice currently reduces both national insurance contributions and the earnings used to calculate student loan repayments. Any change in student loan repayments arising from this measure is a mechanical consequence of restoring those earnings to the national insurance contributions base. It is not a change to student loan policy itself; rather, it flows from levelling the playing field between those who are able to use salary sacrifice arrangements to reduce their earnings for national insurance contributions and those who are not. Of those employees making pension contributions through salary sacrifice, younger people are far more likely to be protected by the £2,000 cap than those above the age of 30. Some 76% of those in their 20s—

Can I just get some clarification? The Minister is making me believe now that I must have misunderstood previous comments. Is he saying that he will not be, or there is not an anticipation he will be, bringing in legislation to remove that impact on student loan repayments? I had understood—and I could have been totally wrong, but I think others have understood as well—that that was what the Government intended.

I am afraid I do not know what led the noble Baroness to believe that. That is not in any way my intention at this point.

As I was saying, 76% of those in their 20s who use salary sacrifice are protected by the cap, compared to half of those aged 30 and above. The Government do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle through which to amend the basis of student loan repayments—

Can the noble Lord explain to the House why it is okay for those whose contributions are lower than £2,000 to get this special advantage of salary sacrifice, while those not lucky enough to have an employer with salary sacrifice should be denied it? The issue seems to be the salary sacrifice itself. The noble Lord is saying it is an anomaly, but the fact that people are getting it because their employer is using salary sacrifice and then you are taking it away does not make things fairer, as far as I can see.

I think it does make the system fairer. We discussed this extensively at Second Reading and in Committee. The Government intend to make the system both fiscally sustainable and fairer, and I think that is exactly what we are doing with this legislation.

As I have said, the Government do not believe this Bill is the appropriate vehicle through which to amend the basis of student loan repayments. As the Prime Minister said last week, the Government inherited from the previous Government a broken student loan system, and we will look at ways to make that fairer.

I turn, finally, to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 15—

With respect, that is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has asked. The Minister has said that he did not say that, but he has just read it out.

I was asked whether I was today saying we would do anything to this legislation; no, we will not. Will we look at how to make the system fairer? Yes, we will. I think those two things are perfectly consistent.

With respect, at either Second Reading or in Committee—I think in Committee—there was a statement that there would not be in this legislation, but other legislation, changes to the definition of earnings for students to get around the problem in this Bill.

That was not a commitment I gave. What I said in Committee, and say again today, is this is not the right Bill to change the student loan repayment system. We will, however, look at ways to make the system we inherited from the previous Government fairer. That remains the position.

I turn, finally, to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 15, 26, 27, and 28, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Altmann, and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford. These amendments seek to increase the value of the cap or to uprate the cap by the percentage change in the consumer prices index or retail prices index. The purpose of the Bill is to cap an unchecked relief which predominantly benefits higher and additional rate taxpayers while protecting ordinary workers using salary sacrifice to make pension contributions. All employees using salary sacrifice will still benefit from national insurance contributions relief on £2,000 of contributions made via salary sacrifice. For a basic rate taxpayer, this is an additional £160 of relief relative to employees who do not use salary sacrifice.

The Government will keep the level of the cap under review, but we do not agree with the approach set out in these amendments, which seeks to uprate the cap in line with inflation. Automatic indexation of the cap would introduce a mechanism inconsistent with the treatment of other major pension tax reliefs, which are not routinely indexed. The Government’s view remains that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for Budgets in those decades. In light of the positions I have set out, I hope noble Lords may feel able not to press their amendments.

Before the Minister sits down, my Amendment would link the limit not to inflation but to the national insurance threshold. Therefore, if the Government wish to hold that threshold to raise more funds, they can. I just wanted to make that clear to your Lordships.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think the position remains the same, though.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to the fray and thank the Minister for his responses. He did not respond to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and me about who high earners are and why those in the £40,000 to £50,000 band should pay 8% not 2%—four times higher. Indeed, why has the £2,000 limit been chosen in the first place?

On SMEs, on which I will also divide the House later, I think the lower incidence of the use of salary sacrifice actually makes the case for not imposing the complexities and administration of salary sacrifice on SMEs and charities. I will leave my noble friend Lord Leigh to wind up on student loans.

I am afraid that we on these Benches are unconvinced that the Government are meeting their policy objective of protecting workers on lower and medium incomes. As my noble friend Lord Leigh said, we are not sure that the Government are even going to raise the desired revenue. The Bill obviously hits those on lower and medium incomes and the protections are not in the Bill, which would ensure that the Government’s own policy objective is achieved. What is the hurry? I would like to test the opinion of the House on exempting basic rate taxpayers from the £2,000 cap.

Ayes 214, Noes 142.

Amendment 1 agreed.