National Insurance Contributions Bill

Given the time that has been spent on this first group of amendments, and the importance of the succeeding groups, I do not want to spend too much time on this group. I shall comment first on amendments Nos. 1, 4, 7, 10 and 11, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which deal with consultation. I share my right hon. Friend’s view that tax legislation should be based as far as possible on consultation. It is important that good legislation should reflect discussions that the Treasury has had with tax advisers, professionals and representatives of industry, so that their views can be taken on board. The Treasury has a fair record of consultation with external bodies. Indeed, when retrospective taxation was discussed in the debates on what became the Finance Act 1978, one of the preconditions of retrospective taxation in trying to close tax loopholes was that there should be consultation with professional bodies and institutions. That is an admirable principle, and it is usually followed. However, it is not always followed. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) highlighted, in his brief intervention on the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), the view of the Institute of Chartered Accountants that, based on the Paymaster General’s statement of 2 December 2004, no one would have expected the Bill to have taken this form. So, surprises do occur, despite the efforts of the Treasury, and sometimes legislation does not take the form expected by those who take a keen interest in these matters, both inside and outside the House.