National Insurance Contributions Bill

The hon. Gentleman and I differ, in that I do not agree that it is retrospective, but I understand his interpretation and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will clarify the wording. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about economic well-being, but I think he rather over-egged his case. He referred to a projected Government deficit of £151,000 million over the next five years, and contrasted it with the sum of £95 million. With due respect, he inadvertently did not present a true picture. The £95 million is the projected increase in tax revenue for 2004–05 as a result of the Bill. According to the regulatory impact assessment, thereafter it will be £240 million a year. In round terms, if the £240 million continued for the whole five years, the total would be more than £1 billion. I appreciate that £1 billion is about two thirds of 1 per cent. of £151 billion, but the comparison is not quite as extreme as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Amendment No. 5 proposes the removal of new section 4B(4) in clause 1. Will my right hon. Friend explain what the subsection means? As I said earlier, I think that if it were removed, the effect would not be what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wants, but I may have misunderstood. If I may use the word employed by the hon. Member for Christchurch, the subsection is slightly ““opaque””. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain it, and why she wants it to remain—as I imagine she does.