Perhaps we will come back to that broader question later, but my right hon. Friend is right. The Bill is shot through with all sorts of broad and worrying powers with an assumption that retrospection is desirable and something for which the Treasury can reach almost at will. That is the whole point of amendment No. 1, because I wanted to find a safety net that would give us a degree of reassurance about what the Treasury might be able to do under the broad terms of the Bill’s present wording. I lit upon the commissioners as being probably the best bet.
The fact that my amendment was selected was an important first step in that direction. Hon. Members will know that it is one thing to table an amendment, but quite another for it to get through the rigorous filters and mechanisms that exist to ensure that our amendments are properly as they should be. I was encouraged—there was a skip in my step—when I read the selection list this morning and found that my amendment had got through that rigorous process. That indicates that it has real substance and that the House can thus consider it carefully and seriously.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Eric Forth
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 December 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on National Insurance Contributions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c1482-3 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:02:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287146
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287146
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287146