National Insurance Contributions Bill

The amendments deal mainly with the retrospective nature of the Bill, a topic that was considered both on Second Reading and in Committee. It is right for it to receive full and proper attention on Report as well, given the importance of retrospection in the context of tax. As has been pointed out a couple of times, when our party were in government, retrospection was used on occasion to tackle tax avoidance, but that should not create a precedent. It should not mean that measures containing an element of retrospection should go unchallenged. I welcome the amendments in that context, as they urge the Treasury to justify certain parts of the Bill. I share the uncertainty of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) about the precise meaning of the wording. I suspect that it boils down to the fact that the Bill follows anti-avoidance measures enacted in respect of other taxes. As I have said, one problem is that NICs and other taxes are dealt with by different Acts, so changes need to be enacted separately. It still has some retrospective provisions and I want to make some general comments about retrospection in response to amendment No. 16, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I join other hon. Members in chiding my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on amendment No. 6. I fear that it creates a position whereby, if the rest of the Bill goes through unamended, the removal of the specific provision would enable retrospection right back to the initial introduction of national insurance contributions.