I agree that one needs to be particularly careful when addressing matters retrospectively through legislation. That is why the question of retrospectivity deserves particular scrutiny in our debates today and in Committee and on Second Reading. In terms of these amendments, the House needs to put retrospectivity in the context—bluntly—of the rich friends of the Conservative party. We are dealing with a measure and amendments to it that are in no way addressed to the average person in the street. I made a calculation, which might have been wrong, on Second Reading and I am now working from memory. I calculated, using the regulatory impact assessment of how many people would be affected and how much money would be raised, that the average person affected by the measure would earn £300,000.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Rob Marris
(Labour)
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 c1494 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:02:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287197
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287197
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287197