National Insurance Contributions Bill

: There are important elements of consensus and agreement on the Bill, but there are also some elements of disagreement, and the Paymaster General has obviously found it difficult to get her head around the fact that we take that nuanced view. On consensus, I shall repeat the point that I made on Second Reading, which the Paymaster General has already quoted—the Government should take reasonable steps to stop people creating complex tax avoidance schemes, in this case in relation to national insurance, which is obviously right because of general revenue concerns. We supported increased national insurance contributions to fund the health service, and we do not resile from that. The measure is also obviously right given the general principle of fairness—most of us pay our dues, and it must be right for the Treasury and the Inland Revenue to act against those who do not. The problem, which Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members have expressed, concerns the general principle of retrospective legislation. Again, that principle is not absolute, because, as the Minister has said, retrospective action has been taken in the past on tax matters—it is part of history. As the European Court of Justice has stated—I have quoted it today, and I quoted it on Second Reading—there are certain cases in which it is proper to apply retrospective measures, so we are not dealing absolute moral principles. However, we need to take account of the concerns that have been expressed. The Institute of Chartered Accountants is not in the business of promoting the interests of fat cats but of preserving the basic principles of tax law and maintaining its fundamental integrity. It has raised serious worries about this aspect of the Bill, and it is only proper that we should echo those. I would summarise the problem by saying that there are, of course, certain circumstances in which retrospective action is necessary in the tax world, but there need to be checks and balances. One of the useful amendments that was tabled was designed to achieve that, which is why we supported it. I have looked back at the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) to which the Minister took exception. I find it difficult to see why. He was merely reiterating what I had said on Second Reading—that there are worries about the principle of retrospective action. He pressed the Minister on several occasions to give an estimate of the tax revenue that would be involved. Clearly, we need to talk about real numbers. If vast amounts of revenue are involved one takes a slightly different view of a major legal principle being challenged than one would take if it was to secure very small amounts of revenue. My hon. Friend repeatedly asked what amount was involved, and we ended up with a scale that ranged from £250 million down to nought. No estimate was produced. He therefore rightly voted for sceptical amendments criticising the application of retrospective legislation in this case.