Proceeding contribution from David Gauke (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 31 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on National Insurance Contributions Bill.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
My hon. Friend asks a good question. We raised that issue in Committee. Under the new procedure for Public Bills, we were able to ask both the Financial Secretary and her officials that question at the evidence session. The answer was somewhat limited. All we heard was, ““It gives us greater flexibility.”” Let me quote the Financial Secretary:"““We see no reason to reintroduce an arbitrary ratio, given our proposal that future changes to the upper earnings limit will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.””––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2008; c. 44.]" However, that is not a satisfactory justification, because if an arbitrary ratio was good enough for Barbara Castle, and indeed for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, in 1975, I do not see why a ratio is not appropriate for us now. The arguments remain the same.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 471 c516
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Income tax National insurance National insurance contributions Tax rates and bands Earnings limits
- Legislation
- National Insurance Contributions Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:41:00 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_441743
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_441743
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_441743