Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 March 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on National Insurance Contributions Bill.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He said that he did not believe that we could reasonably challenge the assertion that the coalition Government would increase funding for the NHS in real terms, but that is precisely what we are doing. If the noble Lord looks at the Red Book and the projections, the aggregate figure is a 0.4 per cent increase, but when you back out the fact that included in that is £1 billion reallocated for social care, because local authority budgets have been squeezed, you will see the opposite effect—a real-terms cut. That was part of the backdrop to the amendment. The noble Lord said that the Government’s proposition was to ““maintain”” the allocation, but that is precisely what they are not doing this year. I raise what Mr Gauke said in the other place. He said on the record that, because earnings were increasing and were projected to increase next year, on the basis of the Government Actuary’s report, he would expect the NHS allocation to increase. At the end of the day, the Government are clearly under pressure on spending, as any Government would be at the current time. If they are looking for resources outside of the National Insurance Fund to make good any shortfall in meeting their commitments, that will be more difficult if they cannot get a reasonable allocation from the National Insurance Fund—a reasonable allocation being an increase in real terms when earnings are increasing as well. That was exactly the premise of Mr Gauke in another place. The Minister made much of what this would mean in terms of administration, but I reject that rather bureaucratic proposition of how you could deal with this, because I think that it could be dealt with quite easily on the basis of estimates, with adjustments at the end of the year. There is no great mystery about that. Having said that, our real concern is the fundamental issue of whether proper funding is going to the NHS and whether in real terms the Government are meeting their commitment. We do not believe that they are. This is just one facet of that. However, I think that we have probably got as far as we can on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 1 withdrawn. Clause 4 : Holiday for new businesses Amendment 2 Clause 4 : Holiday for new businesses Amendment 2 Moved by
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 726 c14-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Charities Employment Finance Increases National insurance NHS National Insurance Fund Public sector National insurance contributions New businesses Regional planning and development
- Legislation
- National Insurance Contributions Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:16:15 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724611
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724611
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724611