National Insurance Contributions Bill

I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to hurry me on to the next part of my argument because that relates, quite properly, to some of the other amendments in the group, on which we will consider whether we prefer the words ““expedient”” or ““reasonable””, as set out in the amendment that he has tabled. I will not get to that quite yet, if he will forgive me, because we are about to get to the meat of this section of the amendments. We are seeking in our amendments to oblige the Treasury to consult the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs and we are faced with a straightforward and simple proposition that occurs fairly frequently when we consider Bills of this kind: are we content with what the Government are trying to tell us in the Bill? Clause 1(1) states:"““it appears to the Treasury to be appropriate to make regulations under a relevant power for the purpose of reflecting the whole or part of the provision made by the retrospective tax provision.””" We see the phrase, ““it appears to the Treasury””, full stop. That is what the Government want us to accept. In other words, they are saying ““Trust us. We are the Treasury; we are the Government, so it will all be okay.”” That would be bad enough in any normal circumstances, but we are talking about retrospective tax provision and we are asked to be doubly trusting of the Government and the Treasury’s ability to implement a retrospective provision. That, of course, is the theme of the Bill. I hope that, on Third Reading, we might have an opportunity to reconsider the principle of retrospection, with which I feel as uneasy now as I did when I first had the honour of coming to the House in 1983. Sadly, I recall being told by much wiser and more senior people than I was at the time—although I am now very wise and very senior, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker—back in 1983 that retrospection was completely out of the question given the traditions of the House, the terms of our unwritten constitution and Magna Carta and all that.