National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, I would also like to offer my support to Amendments 3 and 16 in the names of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Many graduates, including my two sons, already shoulder a significant and in many cases unnecessary burden in repaying their student loans at interest rates that feel wholly disproportionate. It is not until they are paid about £66,000 that they start to pay down the interest. There are few graduates—probably even fewer in the current hiring climate—who reach this sort of pay quickly. I suspect it takes at least five years —that is the case for one of my sons on the fast track in the Civil Service—and much longer for the majority.

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.

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.

Not only does this contrast starkly with the Government’s stated ambition, as set out in the Explanatory Notes and by the Minister at Second Reading, to affect only higher earners; it also disproportionately affects lower-paid workers. Salary sacrifice, as we know, allows an employee to give up a portion of their pay so that it is paid directly into their pension. That does not just attract income tax relief, as all pension contributions do; it also enables national insurance contributions to be saved on the amount transferred. So it is the contribution that working people pay every month that lies at the heart of this issue. Higher rate taxpayers continue to benefit from relief related to their tax rate of 40%. Basic rate taxpayers benefit less, since their tax rate is only 20%. We are talking, on Treasury estimates, about 850,000 basic rate taxpayers.

For a basic rate taxpayer, the 8% national insurance loss amounts to two-fifths of the value of their income tax relief. In absolute terms, the marginal cost of this policy is four times higher for lower-paid workers than for those on higher incomes. The problem goes further: this is a harsher blow to certain groups of savers than many had anticipated, particularly those repaying student loans. That is why I very much support Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, which would prevent those repaying student loans from being hit by a double whammy. I will leave it to him to explain the detail.

Graduates begin repaying their loans once earnings exceed £28,745, at a rate of 9% if they are on the plan 2 scheme. If the Bill is unamended, graduates using salary sacrifice will no longer see that 9% effectively redirected into their pension via salary sacrifice once they exceed the £2,000 cap. For those individuals, the effective loss is not just 8% in national insurance but 17% at the margin.

This comes at a time when the newspapers are full of furious comment about the high interest rates—inflation plus a huge 3%—payable on plan 2 loans. The announcement over the weekend by Kemi Badenoch to support a cut in the rate of interest charged on some student loans issued in the decade up to 2023 is therefore most welcome and is a clear step toward addressing this problem, which the Government, distressingly, seem content to live with.

The interaction between that major issue of public concern today and this Bill on salary sacrifice comes through clearly in a comment from the director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. She said:

“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay”.

At a time when we are urging people to do the right thing—to save, to plan ahead and to take responsibility for their retirement—the Government are choosing to hit lower-paid workers harder. That is the unavoidable consequence of how this policy operates in practice.

Worse still, it falls most heavily on a younger generation who already face higher housing costs, who paid for their university education and who now find work taxed more heavily under this Government’s jobs tax—last year’s £25 billion NICs changes, which we discussed in this Room and which we rightly warned would devastate youth employment. Because that prediction has proved accurate, especially for young people, the Government would be wise to listen to the concerns aired today and outside and make changes to this Bill. It is ironic in a way that we are considering this at the same time as the Pension Schemes Bill, which is designed to improve pension saving and the incentive to save. We are doing the opposite here: making pension saving harder, less attractive and less fair.

Our amendments provide a simple solution for the Minister. By exempting basic rate taxpayers from coming under the cap, we would ensure that the Government’s stated aim is achieved and that we modify what is in effect a regressive tax. Our amendment offers a simple, targeted means of mitigating the harm that this policy will cause to some of the more financially vulnerable people in our society and I urge the Minister to accept it. If he cannot, he should explain to the Committee why his Government are choosing to disincentivise people from taking responsibility for their own future at precisely the moment when state pensions are under significant strain, which is set to intensify in the years ahead. Lower savings today means lower retirement income tomorrow and greater reliance on the state for future needs.

I turn to my Amendments 2 and 15, which ask the Minister a very simple question. What precisely does the Treasury mean by a “higher earner”? Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Government have repeatedly justified this policy on the basis that it is targeted at higher earners. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, described the reforms as “fair and balanced” and said that they,

“protect lower and middle earners”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. 1684.]

Similarly, the Explanatory Notes state plainly that the Bill

“limits the NICs relief available to higher earners”.

Those are the Government’s words, but nowhere in the Bill, in the Explanatory Notes or in the Minister’s speech is the term “higher earner” actually defined.

That is a serious matter, because the practical effect of this policy suggests that it reaches well beyond any intuitive understanding of what a “higher earner” might be. The Minister has already acknowledged that individuals earning £30,000 and below will be affected. Industry experts have warned that those earning between £30,000 and £60,000 are likely to feel the impact most acutely. Median earnings in the UK are around £37,000 and, in London, they are £10,000 greater. Given this, who are these “higher earners” to whom the Treasury refers?

Since the election, we have heard a succession of phrases from the Treasury: working people, ordinary earners, higher earners. The language shifts, but what has remained constant is the refusal to define these terms. When this House considered the national insurance Bill last year, we warned that the burden would ultimately fall on working people. That proved correct; and the same risk arises here that rhetoric about protecting lower and middle earners does not align with the actual distributional impact of the policy, and the Government are allowed to get away with it because they never set the goalposts in the first place. If the Government’s objective is generally to protect those on lower and middle incomes, that objective must be capable of scrutiny. Scrutiny requires definition. Without definition, we cannot assess whether the Government are meeting their own stated aims. That seems a basic requirement of transparency in fiscal policy-making. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.

The Reward and Employee Benefits Association has warned that this Bill will put strain on businesses and push millions of people into poorer retirement. In a survey it undertook, an overwhelming 99% of businesses said the organisation would be affected by the cap and 70% said this Bill would increase the administrative burden. Furthermore, a third of businesses expect the change will make it difficult for them to attract and retain talent. It has been described as a change from sleepwalking into a retirement crisis into speedwalking into one.

I appreciate that all I have said is somewhat of a preamble, but it needs to be said, and it will be said by me only once, although it applies to all the amendments we will discuss today and possibly on Thursday—although I gather the plan now is to curtail debate today if at all practical. Is the noble Lord waving at me? Does he not know either? Fair enough. I always pay attention to Government Whips waving at me.

I turn to Amendments 3 and 16—parallel amendments because of Northern Ireland—in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They deal with the complications this Bill brings in respect of student loans. I appreciate this is a little technical and complicated and may not be best resolved by debate in this Committee so much as by discussion between all relevant parties before Report. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for setting me up to explain it all. I will do my best but, as I say, this may be a difficult format in which so to do.