---

National Insurance Contributions Bill

My Lords, I reject that. The various components of the settlement were very clear in the provisions that we debated last year, including when there could be an earnings-related uprating of the basic state pension. It was a carefully constructed package that had financial implications which had to be affordable. If one component changes, it seems entirely reasonable that we should try to end up where we would otherwise have been, where that settlement was going to take us, and that is what this is doing. Notwithstanding that, there is still some extra gain for higher earners beyond that which would have accrued to them under the original proposals, because by bringing forward the upper accruals point a few years early, there is still a longer time period by which that level of earnings would be within the S2P accruals. So it is entirely justified to do what we are doing in the Bill. I hope that I have covered most of the points that noble Lords have raised; if not, I would be very happy to receive more interventions. I reiterate that this is a narrow technical Bill which is based on wider issues that are current at the moment. We will cover more of the detail in Committee. Trying to simplify the income tax and national insurance system, which is what this facilitates, and trying to make sure that our pension settlement consensus stays on track, where it should be, is the right thing to do. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House. On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.