Proceeding contribution from Angela Eagle (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 17 December 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on National Insurance Contributions Bill.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
The arithmetic in the Red Book took account of it. We knew that there was an issue about increasing the upper earnings limit faster than had been expected. We also knew the implications that that would have for unlooked-for and unearned windfalls for higher rate taxpayers with respect to the state second pension. We were working through policy on this, but if the hon. Lady were to look, she would see that the issues are taken account of in the Budget arithmetic. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire made no real mention of child poverty or pensioner poverty, but he was very concerned about the small number of people earning above the higher earnings limit who may make minor losses because of some of the changes to the state second pension. That again proves that the Conservative party are for the few and not for the many. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) made an interesting speech, in which, to his credit, he talked about child poverty and his concerns about whether the target could be reached. He also made some comments about pensioner poverty, and I tried to bring those to his attention at the time. He said that he supported the Bill in theory and that he liked the first part of it but not the second. He supported the increase in the upper earnings limit, but then said that his party was going to vote against the Bill anyway—that seems an odd thing to do. He said that he had problems with the upper accruals point and the state second pension point. Again, we can talk about that, although the Liberal Democrats have a distinct policy on a citizen's pension, which he discussed and which has been consistently put forward. It involves some difficulties and issues, but it has been their policy for a long time. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that the Bill needs to be voted against when he supports at least half of it. If he wished, he could have raised some of these issues in Committee. We could have debated whether his concerns could be accommodated in some way and whether we could make progress, but he has decided, despite supporting at least half the Bill, that he must vote against it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 469 c664-5
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Income tax National insurance Personal income Poverty National insurance contributions State retirement pensions Tax rates and bands
- Legislation
- National Insurance Contributions Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:59:47 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430869
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430869
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_430869