Social Security, Occupational Pension Schemes and Statutory Payments (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2007

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. We debated the issues behind them at length when we considered the National Insurance Contributions Act 2006. While we have no desire to defend national insurance or tax avoidance, we did not then like the degree of retrospection that was involved in that Act and we have not much changed our minds since. However, I failed to convince either your Lordships’ House or the Government that this would all end in tears, so I will not revisit those issues today. The regulations, so far as I can tell, produce the effect we expected from last year’s Act when we considered it during its passage in your Lordships’ House, and to that extent they raise no new issues. However, I have some questions for the Minister, and the first relates to timing. The National Insurance Contributions Bill had its Third Reading in your Lordships’ House exactly one year ago today. At that stage it was merely sweeping up the provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2005, but it has taken us a whole year to get to the stage where the regulations are finally working their way through the parliamentary process. I understand that the Minister has said that the drafts were issued for consultation last August, but it seems incredibly laid-back of HMRC to take five months to put the regulations out for consultation, especially as the Minister said they were available in draft when the Bill was being considered. This does not seem an appropriate way for HMRC to behave; it seems arrogant. HMRC now has the ability to go back to 2004, so why on earth should it hurry to tell taxpayers how this will work in practice? Why has it taken so long to publish the regulations for consultation? The consultation took until December, and I do not suppose much new came from that extended process. It is now towards the end of March. That throws up questions about the commitment of HMRC to finalising such matters, or perhaps about its own efficiency. My second question concerns whether HMRC is actually oriented to taxpayers’ needs. Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Social Security Contributions (Amendment No. 2) Regulations says, and I paraphrase, ““It would take us an awfully long time to produce consolidated regulations and may even mean that we would have to go and talk to other departments, so we are not going to bother to do that. Who cares about the taxpayer trying to find out what he has to comply with? Certainly not HMRC””. One of the obligations that the Government and HMRC should have is to recognise that as they complicate and lengthen the tax code—we debated this in connection with the Income Tax Bill last night—and now a national insurance code, they have a corresponding obligation to ensure that taxpayers can easily access the rules that govern them. In this instance, HMRC has failed on that score. Lastly, I shall return to the issue of consultation. What I had prepared to say was partly contradicted by the Minister’s remarks. I was going to say that the regulations do not tell us much about the consultation process—only, in paragraph 7.3 of the Social Security, Occupational Pension Schemes and Statutory Payments (Consequential Provisions) Regulations, that no significant comments were received. I was going to ask where those consultation responses had been published. I have searched the HMRC website and could not find them. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum does not say that they were going to be published. But what paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states is that HMRC’s response to the consultation comments will be published on its website. Does HMRC think it appropriate to publish the comments and its response to them before the parliamentary process, or does it regard the process as something that does not really trouble it? The Minister responded that they are published on the HMRC website. I shall say two things: first, it is jolly difficult to navigate around HMRC’s website using conventional search terms such as the titles of these orders—I did not find them. If they are there and I did not find them, then clearly something has gone wrong, but I want also to make a more general plea that when documents are laid before Parliament and if important additional material relevant to their consideration is available, a clear signposting to precisely where they are located on the website would be helpful. That would aid those of us who struggle to find out what issues are troubling those who have responded to the consultations. I am not an enthusiast of the regulations and the Minister will see that my principal concerns are related to HMRC’s approach. It seems often not to care too much about taxpayers or even about Parliament. Perhaps I may suggest that HMRC displays qualities rather similar to those of its boss, the Chancellor, based on the fascinating analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, in the papers this morning. Does the Minister agree with me that the performance of HMRC in relation to these regulations leaves something to be desired? Do Ministers have any will to make improvements in this regard?