Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 February 2008. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2008.


Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2008

I shall comment briefly but, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I shall not write as we shall pick up these matters in the National Insurance Contributions Bill, but if we do not, I shall write further. If somebody pays class 3 contributions, that will add to the fund, but if we look at the long-tail effect of that in terms of the increased costs of pensions over a longer period, that will not compensate for that. The issue is that class 3 contributions are a really good deal. If we look at the full actuarial equivalent of a class 3 contribution—at what the cost should be—it is a multiple of four, or even six times, possibly even with the uprating. The noble Lord is right that for the individual going from 39 or 44 years to 30, there is no cost, but these things are dealt with collectively on a pay-as-you-go basis, so collectively there is a cost for fewer years’ contributions and the relinking with earnings. Having said that, in view of the hour, I ask the Committee to support the Motion. On Question, Motion agreed to.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c141GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
National insurance contributions Social security benefits Earnings limits
Legislation
Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2008
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk