National Insurance Contributions Bill

I wandered into Second Reading on a subject that I confess I knew very little about. It is therefore no surprise that I was slammed very heavily after the debate by my noble friend Lady Noakes. The error of my ways was also pointed out by the Minister in his winding-up speech in that debate. I refer to my general objections about retrospection. The fact of the matter is that retrospection of a sort has always been part and parcel of tax law. One only has to think of the announcements in the Budget, which take effect normally at six o’clock that same evening. They do not actually get enacted into law until the Finance Act is passed and possibly not even in that year’s Finance Act; it may be in several years’ time. On that basis, I cannot object to orders produced within a certain period going back to the date of the announcement in December 2004. To that extent, I am happy to accept what is in the Bill. I am not happy to accept—and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, or my noble friend are happy to accept it either—the idea that if HMRC discovers in 20 years’ time that a practice is going on that it has only just noticed, it should be able to go back to the announcement of 2 December 2004. After all, that announcement was very broad. I am, again, on dangerous ground here, but I rather thought that under current legislation the Revenue, in the general scheme of things, could only go back some six or seven years to research employers’ or individuals’ accounts. Here, we are talking about very much longer. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. My other point is on human rights, which is not specific to this Bill but applies to all legislation. We get an even more bald statement, since I am on baldness at the moment:"““The Lord McKenzie of Luton has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the National Insurance Contributions Bill are compatible with the Convention rights””." That is all it says. We do not know why he thinks that; we do not know why he has been advised that. We know absolutely nothing about it. In the Joint Committee on Human Rights there is often a certain amount of argument about this point. Although this is not a point specifically for the Minister to answer today, it is a general point which ought to be taken into account when, as will happen sooner or later, we review the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998.