Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)

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.