Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is perfectly possible for people to pray against regulations introduced under the negative procedure; indeed, that happens quite frequently. I am simply making the point that a change to the match rate would be a fundamental change to the design of the scheme. As to updating the monthly deposit limit in the light of changes to inflation, inflation is low now, and under this Government, it will continue to be low and sustainable, but we need the ability to update that. A minor, technical amendment that updates the scheme in the light of inflation is more appropriately handled through the negative procedure. The hon. Member for Fareham and I will have to differ on the issue, but I hope that on reflection, he will not see it as a major issue that he wants to press to a Division. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of tax relief. I understand his concern about the possibility of a future Government taking away the tax-relieved status of the saving gateway using the negative procedure. We have been very clear that the saving gateway will be free of income tax and capital gains tax, as is provided for in the draft regulations. I am happy to confirm that we have no intention of reversing our position. Of course, if a future Government were to choose to do so, it would be open to Members to pray against the relevant regulations, but it is not sensible to require all regulations relating to tax relief for the saving gateway to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Some of the regulations may be simple, technical provisions to reflect changes in the tax system more widely. We need to differentiate the policy intention from any fundamental change in policy; that is why the legislation is framed as it is. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the length of the saving gateway account maturity period. I can see where he is coming from. He is saying that if we increase that length and increase the monthly limits by the negative procedure, it could have as significant a cost impact as a change to the match rate. We agree, but the policy intention is to keep the match rate as it is. On the length, the intention is to evaluate the scheme properly once it has run for a period. If it is right to make changes in future, we will want to do so. Allowing the flexibility to make changes of that kind, so that we can ensure that the scheme continues to meet its objectives, is sensible contingency planning on the part of any Government. It is right that the measures should be subject to the negative procedure. That brings me to amendment 2, which relates to the number of saving gateway accounts that a person can have in their lifetime. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, our intention is that people should be able to have only one saving gateway account in their lifetime. That is reflected in the draft regulations. The saving gateway aims to kick-start the saving habit, as we know. It is therefore right that it should be a one-off account. Brian Pomeroy, the chair of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce, said during the Committee’s evidence sessions:"““it is right that they get only one shot, because the basis of the scheme is that it should be a kick-start.””––[Official Report, Saving Gateway Accounts Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2009; c. 18, Q38.]" I think that the hon. Member for Fareham agrees with us on that point. However, we believe that it is right, and sensible contingency planning, to maintain some flexibility on the issue and to give this and future Governments the freedom to allow people more than one account per lifetime, if that is thought reasonable at a later date. Amendment 2 would restrict that flexibility by requiring the Government to consult interested parties and to lay a report of that consultation before Parliament. That would be an unusual requirement for legislation to impose, and it is not necessary. If we wanted to consider a change to the number of accounts that a person could hold in their lifetime, I am sure that we would want to consult on the idea. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) says, under the normal procedure and the guidelines followed in such cases, we would consult. We would want to make sure that any change was effectively targeted, which would mean consulting and talking to various bodies. We have shown in recent years that we are keen to take the views of interested parties into account, when it comes to the design of the saving gateway. Indeed, it has been pointed out that we have hardly rushed into introducing saving gateway accounts. There has been extensive consultation and dialogue, and we are continuing to discuss with various providers how the accounts will be implemented, as the House will be aware. I do not believe that the Government’s flexibility should be restricted in the way proposed in amendment 2. Nor do I think that the changes proposed in amendments 7 to 10 strike the right balance when it comes to what should be covered by the affirmative procedure, and what by the negative procedure, so I hope that the hon. Member for Fareham will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.