National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill (First sitting)
Debate between Alan Mak and Matt Warman(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Q 11 The Government have said that the Bill has no financial implications. If a grant is needed from the Treasury to maintain the mandated threshold of 16.7% of expenditure, do you think that this constitutes a financial implication?
John Whiting: I think that, in those terms, the nature of the national insurance fund, certainly as I have seen it over the years, inevitably goes up and down with the economy to a certain extent. The fact that there is a grant perhaps this year is not of itself exceptional. We are back to attempting predictions, which actuaries are very good at in this area, and seeing what the trends are. This is governed by such things as employment, because if more people are employed, earning more, there is more national insurance going into the fund, so potentially less need for a grant. Of itself, if we take the Bill as it stands, the question of a grant or whatever, is subject, as I said earlier, to what the Government Actuary is going to say about the likely outcome and the likely balances on the fund, which will have to take into account economic circumstances and the general position of contributions.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Q 12 Given the fall in the national insurance fund, are there implications for continued NHS funding from the fund?
John Whiting: We are back to the question of what the fund is for. It is predicated on paying out benefits, particularly pensions. It is really a question you should address to the Treasury, with respect, because it determines where the money comes from. On an entirely personal level, I do not see a direct connection between the balance on the fund and funding for the NHS, but we are going into areas well beyond my compass with the OTS.
Superfast Broadband
Debate between Alan Mak and Matt Warman
Matt Warman
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is the counter-argument to keeping BT together.
Finally, the issue of a universal service obligation, which I mentioned briefly earlier, must be addressed in a more meaningful way. The current 2 megabits per second must be raised, but to raise that dribble to a mere trickle of 5 megabits per second is not enough when 10 megabits should be regarded as the minimum. We must accept that some parts of the country will exceed the minimum by much more than others and therefore set the minimum as high as is practically possible. I for one would like Ofcom to consider whether the current definition of superfast broadband could be that minimum, in line with the aspirations of various Governments around the world, especially when taking into consideration fixed broadband and mobile signal. That will be especially important, as a host of niche schemes come forward across the country, to connect the final 5%.
Additional mobile spectrum may be the answer, but according to Ofcom it will not be available for use until 2022, which will not provide much hope for many of our constituents. 4G will not reach 98% of the UK population until 2017, leaving millions currently with no manageable broadband connection, wireless or fixed.
The solutions to the final 5% will be many and varied, and I am sure that more companies will join those that have already used church towers, tractors and their own trenches to build a new network where it was previously thought impossible. Satellite must play a part, as will many of the exciting new projects in the Government innovation fund.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Many hon. Members have talked about the problems experienced in urban and suburban areas. Villages such as Northney in my constituency are both rural and coastal. Can he assure me that in his work and engagement with Ministers those communities will not be forgotten?
Matt Warman
As a Member of Parliament for a rural and coastal constituency, I can assure my hon. Friend that they will absolutely not be forgotten.
To conclude, if the Government are to achieve their manifesto commitment to near-universal superfast broadband by the end of the next Parliament, as well as ultrafast broadband at nearly all UK premises as soon as is practicable, a brave regulator, much greater transparency and serious Government investment must be forthcoming. Some 12% of our GDP is generated through the internet, which puts the UK significantly ahead of other countries. That status will only be maintained if we do everything we can to further narrow the digital divide, and I hope the Government will agree that the “not spot” summit for which the motion calls will be a positive and constructive part of that vital process.