---

National Insurance Contributions Bill

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for her thoughtful response. That has been characteristic of the tone throughout the progress of the Bill; we have managed to maintain a reasonably cordial and thoughtful approach. However, I must respond to one or two points. On her comment that the employers' upper earnings limit was abolished in 1985, I am running the risk of asking a question when not knowing the answer, but I do not know what the process was and whether it was done through primary legislation. The essence of my argument is that if steps such as those we are discussing are to be taken, that must be done through primary legislation. I should add that I was probably 13 at the time, so I do not feel too responsible for what was done then. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were present, he might be able to tell us more. I shall deal with the Financial Secretary's arguments on amendments Nos. 8 and 10. She makes the case that national insurance contributions were debated on a large number of occasions, but again, they were all during Committee. She says that such contributions have always been handled by regulation, but that has always been done within the framework of the restrictions that I described. The Financial Secretary's argument on amendment No. 10 was essentially that it is unnecessary and that there is no cause for concern. I shall not repeat my arguments as to why there is a cause for concern, because we will not reach agreement. She also said that it was inconsistent with the objective of aligning the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit with the point at which one starts paying higher rate income tax. The purpose of amendment No. 10 is to ensure that they are aligned. As long as they are aligned, the procedure set out in amendment No. 10 will not come into play, so I am not convinced by her argument. I am often convinced by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), with whom I served on the Treasury Committee for some months. I always listen closely to his remarks. The fact that they coincided with the comments made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) is neither here nor there. He particularly liked amendment No. 8. The Financial Secretary's arguments against amendment No. 8 seemed to be that the Government's objectives in increasing the upper earnings limit could not be fulfilled. I acknowledge that point, but I can see no reason why the Government could not table a further amendment in the other place to enable them to do what they need to do for 2009-10—I believe that was the year to which she referred. There is no need for legislation for 2008-09, because the ratio would still apply. I do not find her arguments on amendment No. 8 convincing. Given the mood of the House and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, I am inclined to press amendment No.8, rather than amendment No. 10, to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House proceeded to a Division.