---

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Not only does my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary feel insulted because he does not think that he should be left out of the phrase ““the nicest Treasury Ministers””, but I feel insulted because the hon. Gentleman is ruining my reputation by making out that I am nice. By trying to compliment those on the Front Bench, he has succeeded in insulting us all. Perhaps that was his original intention. The hon. Member for Putney was not the only one to say that the Bill would somehow remove parliamentary scrutiny of the upper earnings limit by abolishing the seven-and-a-half times limit relating to where the upper earnings limit can fall. If she had been a bit more generous, she might have admitted that the Bill will use the affirmative resolution procedure, which means that any future changes to the upper earnings limit will have to come before this House and the other place and be subject to a debate with a potential vote. I do not see that that change should give anyone cause for concern in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. The House always considers extremely carefully affirmative resolutions that come before it. I do not think that the hon. Lady should worry too much that any future increase in the upper earnings limit will somehow go through the House without anyone noticing. The hon. Lady talked about the potential burdens on business and she is right to say that the changes before us rely on an increase in administration. However, I have to point out to her that that will be modest even if, as with all these things, it is regrettable. The Conservative party signed up to the flatrating of the state second pension and that will require the administrative change to be made, so the only difference is that it is being made three years earlier than planned. I assure her that we have been in detailed conversations with the appropriate members of the business community to see whether we can minimise the burden.