---

National Insurance Contributions Bill

My Lords, nobody is trying to hide what happens to the resources that go into the National Insurance Fund. There is a surplus, but that is used to support other government expenditure. I would particularly like to deal with the suggestion that this is all about raising revenue. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that this was part of a package. If you look at the components of that package, from removing the 10p rate there was a benefit of £8.6 billion. Reducing the basic rate to 20p cost £9.6 billion. The alignment of NICs created a surplus of £1.5 billion. Raising the aligned UEL and HRT by £800 a year—the inflationary increase—cost £0.25 billion. An increase in age-related tax allowances by £1,180 above inflation cost just short of £1 billion. There was a price tag of £1 billion for an increase in the child element of child tax credit by £150 above earnings and there were other components. Overall, that package cost £2.5 billion—before whatever might arise from the current look at two groups of people who have been debated extensively recently. It is simply not right to peel away one component and say that this is about raising revenue. It is not.