National Insurance Contributions Bill

That is a helpful intervention, because my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and I differ from the hon. Gentleman on whether the written ministerial statement of 2 December 2004 was opaque. I do not think that it was, and my right hon. Friend has made it very clear to the House that she does not think that it was. I accept that the accountancy body to which the hon. Gentleman has twice referred said that it was not quite clear, but I do not think that it was opaque. I think that it said, ““Watch out if you’re trying to get involved in some strange tax avoidance scheme. We have clamped down on them in the past and we are going to clamp down in the future.”” My right hon. Friend put out a kind of caveat-avoider warning on 2 December 2004. The hon. Member for Christchurch made a point about his amendment No. 19 and the Henry VIII clause. The amendment proposes the removal of new section 4C(3), which the hon. Gentleman said was retrospective. When I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst earlier, I quoted subsection (3)(a) to demonstrate that it was not retrospective. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has worries about retrospectivity, but he seems to be interpreting the phrase in brackets in subsection (3)(a) differently from me. There is retrospectivity in the Bill, but I do not think there is any in subsection (3).