Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)

My Lords, there are five of these amendments. Amendment 16 “would ensure that the outcome of consultations required by section 38(6) is laid before Parliament prior to the implementation of regulations”. Amendment 17 is a proposed new clause, which “would ensure that changes to the means through which deduction orders are processed are accompanied by an impact assessment”. Amendment 22, which has received some support, would require the Minister to undertake yet another review: “of the costs banks are having imposed upon them by Part 1 within 12 months of the new section coming into effect”. Amendment 26 proposes another new clause, requiring the Minister “to publish an annual report on the use of powers conferred by Part 1 of the Bill, which must then be laid before Parliament”. Finally, Amendment 112 is a proposed new clause that “would require the Minister to publish an annual report on the estimated scale of fraud against public authorities”, which must again be laid before Parliament. This would be a pretty hefty tome of things to be laid before Parliament: a book all by itself. Whereas these Benches welcome measures that increase clarity and accountability, is it necessary to prescribe additional reporting mechanisms beyond those already established? Our focus has been on ensuring that existing processes are effectively implemented. I do not think they always are, but that is what has to be done. They also have to be accessible, rather than imposing formal obligations that may not meaningfully enhance anything. I understand the thrust of these amendments, but they would produce a tome of regulations—with a line of civil servants to deal with that—yet provide no meaningful improvement.