Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2006

I thank the Minister for that explanation. This is a relatively uncontroversial order that both Houses deal with every year and which we shall not oppose. In fact, it is so uncontroversial that when it was scrutinised last year in the other place, the Liberal Democrats felt that they did not need to attend. I am glad to see they are, as usual, more assiduous in your Lordships’ House. I would like to raise some questions with the Minister. I appreciate that he may not have the answers to some of them at his fingertips, but perhaps if he is unable to provide responses to them, he will undertake to write to me. First, every year that the Government produce these re-rates there is a discrepancy between the percentage rises of the various bands and thresholds. That has happened again this year. Class 2 rates are increasing by 2.8 per cent; class 3 by 2.7 per cent; and class 4 by 2.9 per cent and 2.4 per cent. In a Written Statement in December, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, stated that the rates were being increased ““in line with inflation””. It would be useful if he could explain which measure of inflation is being used. I know that national insurance benefits are being increased in line with the RPI as measured in December at 2.7 per cent. Is that the level of increase that is being aimed at here, or is it RPI as measured over 2005 at 2.8 per cent; RPI minus X at 2.3 per cent; or the latest RPI figure of 2.4 per cent? I fear that I am utterly mystified. When the matter has been raised previously, Ministers have provided an explanation in terms of rounding, but from my investigations that simply does not wash. Assuming 2.7 per cent was the aim, as for benefits, then the class 2 figure should be rounded to £4,460 not £4,465, and the class 4 figures to £5,030 and £33,645, rather than £5,035 and £33,540. Why have the figures in the order not been rounded in that way, should the rounding explanation prove correct? The Minister may think that that is being pedantic, but large numbers of people pay national insurance contributions—and, at higher levels since 2003, those differences of a few pounds will make rather a large difference to the National Insurance Fund, which is what we are really discussing. I am not suggesting any jiggery-pokery by the Government; indeed, some of the discrepancies benefit the taxpayer rather than the National Insurance Fund, but an explanation would be beneficial none the less. As the noble Lord said, the order is based to a great extent on the Government Actuary’s report. As this is the first time I have dealt with such an order on behalf of my party, I did the Minister the courtesy of reading the report. I highlighted two points. First, on page 6, why has the money to Northern Ireland shot up so significantly from £185 million to £630 million? Secondly, has the Minister any explanation for the unsatisfactory comment in the report about widows’ payments? Paragraph 15 on page 18 says that,"““the awards of bereavement have been unusually low in recent statistics””." This surely cannot be as a result of there being fewer widows, so, as the report indicates, there must be something wrong with the data. However, is it not just as likely to be a problem of take-up? If I am right, what is being done to advertise the availability of such benefits? In October, it became apparent that many of Britain’s orchestras were being faced with a substantial national insurance bill, due to the underpayment of class 1 employer contributions. Has any progress been made in satisfactorily solving this issue, so that we can avoid the closure of the orchestras? I appreciate that some of these questions are quite difficult and technical, which I hardly understand the presentation of myself. I am sure I will not understand the answers. I will therefore read Hansard with particular and peculiar interest on this occasion.