---

National Insurance Contributions Bill

My Lords, that depends on how long one is going to live. It is generally the case that people at or close to retirement do not wish to take on extra borrowing. Even if there is an arithmetic case for what my noble friend says—I accept that point—I doubt whether, as a practical matter, poorer households would want to take on that additional borrowing. One concern is that those who could take advantage of the proposal are wealthy expatriates—men and women. We estimate on the original proposition that something like 65,000 people living overseas could benefit. I acknowledge, as indeed has the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that my noble friend’s subsequent amendment to the proposition, particularly to have a 20-year contribution threshold, certainly helps to reduce the cost and raise the barrier to exclude some of the non-residents, but there are potentially significant costs attached. My message is that we need to continue talking about this issue. I want to emphasise my noble friend’s point about the changes made in the Pensions Act 2007. They will narrow the gender pensions gap and deliver fair outcomes to women and carers, and significantly improve women's state pension coverage. I will not go through the detail because we have discussed it before and the clock is moving on. The concern is about targeting. If we had a way of reaching those poorer women whom my honourable friend is most concerned about, as are we, there may be scope for moving forward on that matter. My noble friend also asked about the National Insurance Fund and what would happen to the surplus. My noble friend is well aware that that surplus is invested back into the public sector. If it were not available, the Government, through borrowing or raising taxes, would have to find the wherewithal by other means to fund their current Budget.