Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

Amendment 25 requires regulations made under Clause 4(2) and (3) to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The requirements for orders are set out in Clause 27, but I have drafted this amendment to Clause 4 so that it can be debated alongside the substance of Clause 4. That is for the convenience of the Committee. The regulations under Clause 4 allow the length of the maturity period and the maximum amount of the monthly payment to be set by regulations. These two items can drive the amount of the maturity payment, which is calculated in accordance with Clause 8. I was surprised to see that the regulations, which can radically change the nature and scale of the saving gateway scheme and its overall cost, are left to secondary legislation subject only to the negative procedure. Admittedly, the first orders will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is welcome, but as we have the draft regulations to assist us in our consideration of this Bill, the issues will not arise on the first orders because we have the opportunity to debate them now. If issues arise, they will be on subsequent orders. We agree that these issues are best dealt with in secondary legislation. We have debated today and will doubtless debate again at Report whether more should be in primary legislation, but in general terms we believe that it will be necessary to change the size and shape of the saving gateway accounts over time. Secondary legislation is the best way to do that. However, where those details have a direct bearing on the total cost of the scheme—as they clearly could by regulation changes to Clause 4—the affirmative procedure is the only proper way to achieve those changes. I might be persuaded that it is only appropriate for the other place to approve such an order, but I would be hard pressed to be persuaded that there should be no formal parliamentary approval to an order that could radically change the shape of the gateway accounts and therefore the cost to the taxpayer. I beg to move.