← Back to House of Commons Debates
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill 2025-12-17
17 December 2025
Lead MP
Torsten Bell
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
DefenceTaxationEmployment
Other Contributors: 17
At a Glance
Torsten Bell raised concerns about national insurance contributions (employer pensions contributions) bill 2025-12-17 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Minister moved that the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill be read a Second time. He argued for reforming pension salary sacrifice due to its growing cost, which is set to rise to £8 billion by the end of this decade, equivalent to the cost of the Royal Air Force. The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice, and workers on the national living wage are entirely excluded, making it hard to defend the status quo on grounds of fairness.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Expressed concerns about the impact of national insurance contributions increases on small businesses in Northern Ireland, highlighting a significant rise in utility prices and labour costs. The Minister acknowledged these issues but emphasised that the proposed changes include a long implementation period to help businesses adjust.
James Naish
Lab
Rushcliffe
Asked for more details on the breakdown of those benefiting from pension salary sacrifice, specifically regarding higher earners. The Minister indicated he would address this point later in his speech.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Questioned whether the Government had justified levying such a large sum of money after previously claiming to have wiped the slate clean regarding non-existent black holes. The Minister responded that it was important to keep tax reliefs under review due to the rapidly growing cost of pension salary sacrifice.
Lincoln Jopp
Con
Spelthorne
Asked whether the Government had provided details about future defence spending, noting delays in publishing such information. The Minister responded that without increases in taxation, funding for necessary spending could not be secured.
Mark Garnier
Con
Wyre Forest
Garnier criticises the Government's approach to pensions and savings. He argues that recent tax reforms are detrimental to pensioners, savers, and hard-working people. He highlights the popularity of salary sacrifice schemes as an incentive for saving and expresses concern over the proposed £2,000 cap on these schemes. Garnier also cites several industry experts who warn against the negative impacts of the proposed changes.
West Dorset
Morello questions whether the proposed changes will simply move the problem to another group by reducing contributions and potentially increasing reliance on state support in retirement. He suggests that such measures could discourage savings, leading to fewer people being able to support themselves financially in old age.
Speaker of the first extract
not explicitly named but from Labour Party
The Government's proposed cap on salary sacrifice for pensions is unfair and detrimental to middle-income earners, low earners, and employers. It will disproportionately affect those who should be encouraged to save more for their retirement and undermine the savings and investment culture.
Jim Dickson
Lab
Dartford
The Bill ensures fairness in a tax system that protects lower earners with a £2,000 threshold while limiting NICs relief for higher earners through salary sacrifice. It allows the Government to keep its manifesto pledges and support public services.
Torbay
The measures in the Bill will discourage people from saving for their pensions, particularly those who are already falling short of a comfortable retirement. They will also increase national insurance costs for some businesses and exacerbate an already struggling economy.
Solihull West and Shirley
The Bill takes us in the wrong direction by discouraging people from saving for their retirement, taking responsibility for their future, and feeling secure in later life. It undermines the Government's role in encouraging savings.
Men are more likely than women to use salary sacrifice schemes; hence the speaker's point about women being disproportionately affected needs reconsideration. He also emphasises that saving into a pension remains tax-advantaged despite the Bill.
The Minister is correct in encouraging people to save for pensions, but legislation like this one disincentivizes such savings and disproportionately affects women who may return from career breaks to catch up on pension contributions. The Bill negatively impacts pension contribution schemes and discourages responsible saving.
Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey
The Labour Government's proposed measures in the Bill increase national insurance taxes despite previous pledges to not do so. The Bill is detrimental to businesses still reeling from last year’s national insurance hike. Employers may decrease pension contributions or discontinue schemes entirely, impacting workers' retirement security negatively.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
The Labour Government's final economic Bill of the year is another example of targeting people trying to do the right thing. The Bill reduces attractiveness for employers to contribute to private sector pensions, exacerbating differences between public and private sectors regarding pension contributions and benefits.
Dan Tomlinson
Con
Dartford
Closing remarks on the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. Acknowledged contributions from both sides and addressed concerns raised by shadow minister Richard Fuller regarding the OBR costing and timeline for implementation. Emphasised fairness in pension tax relief, stating that only those earning over £30,000 would be significantly impacted. Noted 4.4 million self-employed individuals cannot access salary sacrifice schemes and highlighted positive economic indicators such as wage growth under current government policies.
Chris Vince
Lab/Co-op
Harlow
Asked Dan Tomlinson to reflect on the impact of the proposed changes on low earners and self-employed individuals who currently do not have pensions. Pointed out that only one in five self-employed people actually gets a pension, questioning how the changes would affect those without access to salary sacrifice schemes.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Asked Dan Tomlinson for clarification on certain points but was not given way. Likely raised concerns about the fairness and implementation of pension reforms, though specific details were not provided in the excerpt.
Government Response
The Government introduced this change with a very long implementation period to give businesses and others time to adjust, which has been widely welcomed. The Minister emphasised the need to review tax reliefs due to the escalating cost of pension salary sacrifice and outlined plans for gradual reform from April 2029. He argued that automatic enrolment, rather than salary sacrifice arrangements, was responsible for reversing the decline in workplace pension saving.
Shadow Response
None
Shadow Response
Garnier outlines the contradictions and negative impacts of the Government's proposed changes, citing numerous industry experts who oppose the £2,000 cap on salary sacrifice schemes. He also criticises the Minister for misrepresenting a report commissioned by the previous government that actually concludes against the rationale for such a cap.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.