Charlie Maynard

I completely agree. It sends the wrong message and puts in place the wrong incentives, and that is a real problem. Ministers will have seen the analysis produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility in response to the former Lib Dem Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, highlighting the flaws in the Government’s claim that these changes will not impact most lower and middle earners—that is, those not saving more than the £2,000 threshold in any case. The OBR’s new analysis highlights three main ways that the Bill could affect the wider workforce. First, employers may move away from salary sacrifice altogether by increasing ordinary employer pension contributions in place of wage growth, all by reducing contractual pay in exchange for higher contributions. The OBR’s analysis makes it clear that any change of this kind would necessarily have to be applied across all of the workforce and could not be limited to higher earners, so the impact of these changes could indeed see lower pay rises or reduce base pay for employees who contribute less than £2,000. Secondly, the new analysis spells out that some employees may move to make standard pension contributions, including through relief at source schemes, thereby losing the NICs advantages of salary sacrifice and increasing their NICs bill, even if they contribute small amounts. Thirdly, OBR modelling shows that employers would pass down around three quarters of the additional NICs cost to employees, mainly through lower wages, which again would likely hit all workers regardless of the amount they save through salary sacrifice. Not only does this OBR analysis indicate that the Government have been wrong to frame these changes as something that will impact only those with broader shoulders, but, crucially, when the OBR assumed a significant behavioural response from employers and employees, the estimated amount this policy will raise fell by almost half, from £4.7 billion in 2029-30 to £2.6 billion in 2030-31, as these impacts feed through. I am interested to understand whether or not the Minister agrees with that point. Raising the threshold from £2,000 to £5,000 will not solve these issues entirely, but it would mitigate them by exempting a larger number of people on lower and middle incomes from the key change in the Bill. That would, in turn, reduce the number of employees impacted. Lords amendment 2 relates to the repayment of student loans. This issue was also explored in the Lords, but I think it should be reiterated here, because although it is probably an inadvertent effect, it is none the less a significant issue. I appreciate the Minister’s words, but the fact remains that for any graduate who saves above the threshold, not only will their NICs payments go up, but so will their student loan repayments. This Bill is a double whammy on a group who are already struggling with high interest payments, escalating debt and a very challenging jobs market. To conclude, with four in 10 people in the country, whether in my Witney constituency or any other Member’s, already not saving enough for retirement, and with the pressures on the state pension and social care system well known, it is counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to do so to save towards their retirement. Once again, the measures in the Bill are short-sighted, and the Government’s justifications for them do not add up. I support the Lords amendments, which seek to iron out problems and mitigate the negative impacts. Overall, my party and I cannot support the Bill.