Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

This amendment raises an issue that I addressed at length at Second Reading, which is whether any national organisation at all will be likely to offer saving gateway accounts. It is absolutely clear that the Post Office is very keen on them, but when its representative gave evidence to the Bill Committee in another place, he said in terms that it did not have a financial model which enabled him to have any confidence that it could make them work financially. As for the other banks, the BBA made it clear that none was committed to the scheme, and none was looking at it with any enthusiasm whatever. Although the noble Baroness talks about the desirability of choice, I do not think that we are in that luxurious position. My concern is that, as things stand, there will not be a single national provider at all. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, mentioned earlier that he thought that the banks had a commitment to promoting financial inclusion. Well, they do as long as it does not harm the bottom line. I do not believe that this scheme can work on a straightforward commercial basis; the amount going into the accounts is just too low compared with the inevitable costs, however minimal, surrounding them. The noble Baroness says she thinks that the choice would be inadequate if it was only between the nationalised banks. If the choice is only between nationalised banks, it will be a far greater choice than we will get otherwise. That may be the only option for having any choice at all. I therefore urge the Government to have discussions with the nationalised banks about their doing this. I am sure that they will say that they cannot do it on a commercial basis. If they cannot do it commercially—I have no idea how much subsidy will be required—and if, as the Government believe, it is a matter of great significance, perhaps they could take it out of some of the other funds that they are devoting to community investment. The banks spend considerable sums in community investment, and it is a question of priorities. If it will cost them, say £2 million or £5 million to subsidise a scheme like this, perhaps they could take it from that budget or from a marketing budget. We know, for example, that RBS is reducing the amount it is giving to Andy Murray, Sachin Tendulkar and various others in sponsorship. But it is still spending a huge amount on sponsorships. Perhaps it could take it out of that and be absolutely up-front about the subsidy. As I said, I very much doubt whether a straightforward commercial bank can run this scheme at anything other than a loss. If the Government want the scheme to provide choice, they will have to explain to the banks that they control how they can do it. The way that I have just described is probably the only way they will be able to justify it.