Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

The noble Baroness has introduced an amendment that deals with some interesting issues. As she recognised in her opening statement, the first use of all but one of the delegated powers in the Bill will be subject to affirmative procedure, and I understand that she is content with that. That indicates that the Government are all too well aware of the significance of the secondary legislation. We are making those arrangements. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said a few moments ago. Of course she is absolutely right when she says that scrutiny of the Bill is the responsibility of this Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee comments as it sees fit, but when that committee comments in a way that clearly indicates that the Government have got an interesting area just about right, it is only appropriate that we draw attention to it. I am about to do it again. I know that I am straining the noble Baroness's patience because she is keen to introduce the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee only when it is fiercely critical of the Government. I can recall it having been so on one or two occasions in the past on other Bills. She will therefore not mind that the shoe is on the other foot, as it were, because in its report it states that, given the limited nature of the power, it is content that the negative procedure is appropriate for one exception. We have reached that position with the first stage of this legislation. Now we come on to the question of potential change. Making the first use of almost all the delegated powers subject to the affirmative procedure will allow the necessary parliamentary scrutiny of the detailed scheme we are introducing. After that, the subsequent use of most powers should, in the Government’s view, be subject to the negative procedure to provide the flexibility to make minor or technical changes to the scheme which are appropriate only for secondary legislation. There are four exceptions to that: the three crucial delegated powers in Clause 3 that relate to eligibility and the power to set the match rate. Those are key features of the saving gateway, so every use of those powers will continue to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have identified the key areas. The amendment specifies that other delegated powers should be subject to the affirmative procedure on each use. In particular, it focuses on the powers to set the maturity period of accounts and the monthly deposit account, but we think that the negative procedure is appropriate for the subsequent use of those powers. As I said, they will be scrutinised on first use but, on subsequent uses, the negative procedure is appropriate. As I have said, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is largely content with that. There are precedents for changes to the monthly deposit limit to be set by negative procedure. For both ISAs and the child trust fund, the subscription limits are set in secondary legislation and can be amended in both cases under the negative procedure. As foe the length of accounts, we have been clear that they should last for two years. However, there should be flexibility to review this position in future. That can best be achieved by making use of the regulation-making procedure. We contend that that should be the negative procedure—not on first use, but subsequently. I know the noble Baroness will not allow me to produce in aid the evidence that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not make any comment. As she said, it is not its job to comment on everything. On the other hand, when the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee makes a recommendation she expects the Government to jump—as we always do—and treat it with great seriousness. When it does not, she must expect me to comment on the fact that our proposals have at least a clean bill health in respect of the anxieties of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We do not believe that it would be an effective use of parliamentary time to debate some of these matters under the affirmative procedure, save for the first time when the scheme is implemented. Afterwards, it is clear that the negative procedure will be appropriate. It is not as if the negative procedure rules out parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Baroness will give some credence to the fact that I once had the somewhat invidious task of making sure that the Opposition was on the QV with regard to negative instruments, as we always referred to them. She knows that they are profuse, extensive, complicated and mind blowing. Nevertheless, we regarded it as our task. I am sure that the present Opposition discharge their task on negative procedures with the same thoroughness at the other end as they undoubtedly do here. Under that procedure, the legislation is still subject to parliamentary scrutiny, although different from under the affirmative procedure. On the basis of the case that I have put forward, we think that we have got the distribution of affirmative and negative just about right and I hope the noble Baroness thinks so too.