National Insurance Contributions Bill

None the less, if discretionary powers are to be increased overall—[Interruption.] There is obviously a dispute about whether the Government are increasing discretionary powers. It is clear, however, that the Bill fails to introduce a corresponding binding clearance regime, even though that would be desirable. Finally, what are cost implications of the Bill for business? The regulatory appraisal says that employers who have engaged in avoidance must submit supplementary end-of-year returns for NICs. According to the explanatory notes, that will affect only 500 employers and will not cost more than £3,000 per employer. Does the fact that the number of affected employers is small show that the previous regime was working? Who calculated the £3,000 cost? The regulatory appraisal says that 21,000 small businesses and a further 90,000 self-employed people will incur small familiarisation costs, which is a big extra burden on business. Who made that estimate and who judged the costs to be negligible? The explanatory notes say that the measure will generate an additional £95 million in NICs in 2004–05, and £240 million per annum thereafter. The HMRC website, however, states that the Bill will secure tax and NIC yields of £200 million in 2004–05 and £500 million thereafter. It will be interesting for the House to know which of those is correct. There are elements of the Bill that may be regarded as non-controversial, but we need to explore the possible use of the powers beyond the purpose for which they are intended, the avoidance v. tax planning issue, the introduction by the Government of a general anti-avoidance rule, and the potential cost/benefit of the measure for business.