Skip to main content

1-20 of 54 results for subject:Apprentices

Legislation X
National Insurance Contributions Bill 2010-12

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
National Insurance Contributions Bill 2010-12 (54)

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

National Insurance Contributions Bill. Lords committee stage. Clause 1 to 15 agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Grand Committee held in the Moses Room.

Department
Treasury
Type
Debates on bills; Committee proceedings
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c77-108GC
House
House of Lords

Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I would like to reflect a little on what he said on Amendment 3 and the application of Clause 7(3) but we see the import of that response. Of course, I shall not press any of these amendments this afternoon....

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c87GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, from the perspective of opposition I always rather approve of Bills starting in our House, the upper House. It gives us a first shot at the Minister and a chance to develop our own argument without in any way having been influenced or prejudiced by any discussions elsewhere....

Member
Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c94-5GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. As we discussed at Second Reading, and as was pursued in another place, we have concerns that the national insurance holiday is targeted by crude geographical area and not by any more objective assessment of need. These...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c88-9GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I rise to speak because I grew up and have spent much of my political life in Greater London. Like most Londoners, I would defend to the last any opportunity or benefit that might come to London. However, I recognise that if areas such as Greater London, the...

Member
Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c89-90GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for answering the main thrust of the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. This measure does need to be targeted. It cannot be targeted in a way that picks out pockets of deprivation—of which there are...

Member
Lord Sassoon (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c90-1GC
House
House of Lords

I thank the Minister for that response and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her contribution. I do not think that we will totally see eye to eye on this issue. The noble Baroness referred to better-off regions, but that does not address the point that regions are not homogeneous....

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c91GC
House
House of Lords

10: Clause 5, page 3, line 32, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c)

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c91GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, Amendment 10 focuses on the inclusion within the term ““business”” of ““property business”” and ““investment business””. Section 263(6) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 includes a UK property business and an overseas property business within the definition of ““property business””. This would seem to...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c91-2GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Of course we will withdraw the amendment; as he knows, that is the practice in the Moses Room. I understand the broad thrust of his point about funding for the NHS, but we shall have to agree to differ on the...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c82GC
House
House of Lords

I apologise for not responding earlier, but I see that the noble Lord has the Government Actuary’s report, from which the Committee can see that the NHS allocation for 2010-11 will be about £20.5 billion, and pretty much the same for 2011-12. The figures in appendix 6, towards the bottom...

Member
Lord Sassoon (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c82GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, of course, I am grateful to the Minister for his general response. He referred to choppy waters, but choppy waters can be uncomfortable and people in boats can feel unwell in choppy waters. We are concerned that those waters may have sufficient movement to swamp many people. We...

Member
Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c79-80GC
House
House of Lords

1: Clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out ““““50”””” and insert ““““75””””

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c80GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 2. Amendment 1 seeks to probe why 50 per cent, rather than, say, 75 per cent, of the product of the additional primary rate and additional class 4 percentage rate form part of the health service allocation. Amendment 2 poses the same...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c80-1GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I hope that I did not give too much encouragement with my remarks on Clause 1 to indicate that I would be in too accommodating a mode this afternoon. As regards the two amendments, I find this split of the proceeds between different allocated funds rather confusing and...

Member
Lord Sassoon (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c81-2GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, presumably the Minister hopes that the Committee stage of this Bill will not be as protracted as another Bill that has been before the House over the past few weeks, and I think that I can give him that assurance. However, we want to debate whether Clause 1...

Member
Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c77-8GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for confirming that the Committee might move more expeditiously through this Bill than some other recent Bills. I think that the noble Lord said that I would understand why he opposes Clause 1 standing part of the...

Member
Lord Sassoon (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c78-9GC
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I apologise if my newness to the institution shows in my bobbing up at the wrong time. I wish to make a couple of small comments on the amendments in this group, although my comments are less about the detail and more, in a sense, about questioning the...

Member
Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c85GC
House
House of Lords

My Lord, those two interventions go to the heart of why it is necessary to strike a difficult balance—this is where judgments have to be made—between, on the one hand, providing some tight and suitable anti-avoidance provisions and, on the other, ensuring that we do not make it excessively difficult...

Member
Lord Sassoon (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c85-7GC
House
House of Lords

4: Clause 4, page 2, line 24, leave out ““Greater London,””

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
28 February 2011
Reference
725 c88GC
House
House of Lords