National Insurance Contributions Bill

We politicians have just watched from a distance the political crisis in Germany, much of which is connected to the fundamental weaknesses and difficulties in the German economy. The German people and political classes would be delighted to have the economic framework that the Government have created in this country since 1997. Arguably, Germany has experienced some of those difficulties, yes, because of unification—we must be fair about that, and a lot of people are unfair when they forget to mention the unification of Germany—but also because it has been slow in some ways to face up to the realities of global economic change, and our economic policies have been based entirely on facing up to them. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) expressed sadness that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had not spoken in the debate. That sadness is shared by those of us on the Front Bench, and we look forward to his taking a similar role in Committee. The hon. Gentleman wants an assurance that our approach to the tackling of avoidance will be proportionate—I can give him that assurance—but he talked about the cost implications for business. The message is simple: if business does not avoid tax, these anti-avoidance schemes have no cost implications. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) asked in his contribution whose judgment would be in play in these issues. It will be the House’s judgment. Direct taxation is dealt with in the Finance Bill. National insurance issues are dealt with by affirmative resolution in both Houses. So the Government are certainly happy to take responsibility for those questions of judgment. He also asked me—I am a bit puzzled by this—to write to him about a specific scheme that he referred to so that I can tell him what he is talking about. I should be delighted to tell him what he was talking about, and I will write to him about that specific scheme, although I do not recall its name. This has been a good-quality debate on the whole and a good-natured debate. There is consensus on both sides of the House about our responsibility and duty to have a fair taxation system and to tackle tax avoidance effectively. Clearly, we must debate a number of points in Committee, and I look forward to those debates. I commend the Bill to the House.