National Insurance Contributions Bill

moved Amendment No. 11:"Page 5, line 12, after ““be”” insert—" ““(a)   published by the Treasury for the purposes of consultation with those persons who are or may be affected by it for a period of not less than three months; and (b)   ”” The noble Baroness said: I shall move Amendment No. 11. I had intended to table its twin for Clause 2, but did not manage to do so, for various reasons. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is a corresponding amendment here in spirit. I am well aware that the Minister said at Second Reading, as reported in Hansard, on 9 January 2006 at col. 25, that the regulations having retrospective effect will be subject to a three-month consultation process. We welcome that statement. The plain fact is that the Bill has no such provision. Therefore, Amendment No. 11 seeks to enshrine the requirement for consultation in the Bill. There are two reasons for that. First, I am trying to reflect the substance behind the conditions for retrospection outlined by Lord Rees. I have already talked about the first of those conditions, which was that the announcement should be made to Parliament in a precise form. A second condition required the problem to be referred to a committee composed of the Inland Revenue and the accountancy and legal professions. The third condition required the committee to publish draft legislation as soon as possible. Whatever that draft committee was back in 1978, it does not exist any more. Instead, HMRC has a number of groups of professionals, which do not amount to committees, based on people’s specialisms. It has dialogue through those channels. I think that the sense behind the second and third conditions is clear: consult with the professionals as soon as possible. I think that our modern three-month consultation period is an equivalent to the second and third conditions, and I am keen that the legislation should reflect that. My second reason is to ensure that there is a proper consultation. I have no reason to doubt the reliability of HMRC’s consultation processes. But the regulations under this Bill will be laid by the Treasury, and the Treasury has not always lived up to the highest standards of consultation. I will give one example of which I know the Minister is aware. Last summer, the Treasury wished to lay some regulations dealing with insolvency provisions involving Lloyd’s names. I will not weary the Committee with the details; let me just say that they were long, complicated and came from Europe. The Treasury’s idea of consultation was to place the draft regulations on its website without any press release alerting the public to their existence or any other attempt to ensure that those with an interest were aware of them. That was contrary to Cabinet Office rules. On the basis of that experience, we cannot assume that the Treasury is a good guardian of the consultation process. I hope that the Minister will view the amendment as a contribution to good government. I beg to move.