National Insurance Contributions Bill

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I would like to know whether the Minister thinks that proposed new section 132A(6) to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 would cover accountants. The provision includes a reference to ““legal professional privilege””, but having never practised as an accountant, I do not know whether accountants would fall under that definition or be covered by the Bill. There is an overwhelming case for allowing anyone who gives confidential advice to ensure that that advice and the papers associated with it remain confidential, even if that person is not legally qualified. Some years ago I employed a young girl called Jane Oakes. She wanted to be a solicitor, but during her employment with me and while she was taking her studies, she was not legally qualified. However, she was an expert on certain areas of law. Information such as that which she obtained when advising a client on her area of expertise, even though she was not legally qualified at the time, should be protected under the Bill and the general provisions on client-lawyer confidentiality. Legal privilege can provide a defence for a professional legal adviser to a charge of failing to report suspicions of money laundering, but that applies only if the information is received in privileged circumstances and is not communicated to the lawyer with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose. However—this might answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone)—there is no specific provision in money laundering legislation or the Bill to provide the same protection to accountants. I do not think that accountants generally have the same protection as lawyers when they give advice, although a legally qualified person who advises his employer can claim the defence. I understand that, so far as money laundering is concerned, at the time the initial guidance was issued, discussions were under way between Ministers and interested parties about how legal privilege could be interpreted. Will the Minister, when she speaks on Third Reading, tell us whether she has had any discussions on the scope of privilege? It is a crucial point for many of us who will have to decide, during the Third Reading debate, whether we want to support the Bill or divide the House. It being Five o’clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [27 October], brought proceedings on consideration of the Bill to a conclusion. Bill reported, without amendment. Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen’s Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]