---

National Insurance Contributions Bill

I beg to differ—it is the hon. Gentleman who has put the cart before the horse. There are more members of the tax planning community because the Government are creating more complex legislation, in which tax planners seek to pick holes. Tax practitioners acknowledge that measures in the Bill will act as a deterrent impact, but Joy Svasti-Salee of KPMG says that"““they create uncertainty which is not good””." It is not clear which schemes will be allowed and which prohibited when they are left unspecified by a general catch-all. By contrast, specific laws would aim to define abuse and avoidance. Discretion has been granted to the authorities over NICs and income tax but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, that should go hand in hand with binding tax and NIC clearance granted by the HMRC when its opinion or advice is sought about a tax scheme by a taxpayer prior to making certain decisions about the structure of their financial affairs. HMRC has resisted that proposal, and undoubtedly the Paymaster-General will repeat that it is not in the business of giving free tax advice. That argument falls, because she has changed the rules, and if a specific proposal is taken to HMRC on a matter of tax or NIC policy in which the authority has acknowledged and increased discretion, it is wholly appropriate that it should have a duty to give a ruling about how it will exercise those powers prior to the implementation of a scheme.