Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Freud (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 March 2011. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011.


Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011

My Lords, I thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his interest in this and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for making that point. To summarise, this sets out the level of contracted-out rebate rates that will apply to employers and employees within defined benefit contracted-out occupational pension schemes from April 2012. As I said earlier, while we have provided rates for defined contribution schemes, that is purely to meet the statutory requirement. As I said before, we are looking at a reduction for contracted-out defined benefit schemes from 5.3 per cent to 4.8 per cent. As I understand it, the central question that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, put was about why we have picked that one rather than the funding basis or the gilts basis. I shall go a little into the concepts behind the three different approaches. Each approach is designed to provide the employer with a different level of guarantee about it being sufficient to cover the cost of the additional state pension foregone. Taking into account the considerable cost to the taxpayer of providing the reduction in national insurance contributions, the Secretary of State decided that adopting the best estimate approach was the most reasonable. When you think about it, the point about it working half the time is really saying that we have reached the point of indifference between whether you provide a pension scheme or do not do so and rely on the state. There is a rationale there. The other approaches in practice provide a much more powerful bias towards contracting out. The noble Lord’s supplementary question was about defined benefit schemes. The risk is now essentially being run by the schemes. Different schemes will, of course, have different contributions rates for employers and employees, so there is no simple answer. The core answer is that moving to the point where, on balance, there is a point of indifference between whether you go in or out means that it is a neutral decision. On the question about public versus private, for public sector schemes there is no extra cost to the employer as the Government are the employer so there is a degree of funds being recycled. Both public and private sector employees will see a slight reduction in take-home pay as a result.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c273-4GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
National insurance Workplace pensions National insurance contributions
Legislation
Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk