Proceeding contribution from Mark Field (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 27 October 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on National Insurance Contributions Bill.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
I am intrigued by the tense the Paymaster General uses. She refers to legislation that the House ““has passed””. Our concern is not with legislation where there is a clear intention from the Government. The issue here is retrospection. That is our great anxiety. Where legislation has been passed, and there is clarity and certainty, that is fine, but the point of the Bill is to sweep back as far as 2 December 2004.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 438 c478
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Incentives Income tax Employees' contributions Employers' contributions National insurance Personal income Pay Payments National insurance contributions Small businesses Stocks and shares Tax avoidance Taxation Tax yields Enterprise management incentives Retrospective legislation
- Legislation
- National Insurance Contributions Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:59:56 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270636
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270636
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270636