Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

Amendment 27 deletes "true" from Clause 6(2)(b). I shall also speak to Amendment 28, which would delete, on a probing basis, subsection (4). Clause 6 sets out what an application to open a saving gateway account must contain and has the expected regulation-making powers. Clause 6(2)(b) says that the application must include a "true declaration" about prescribed matters. My amendment deletes "true", because the truth or otherwise of the declaration can be determined only by reference to the underlying facts, and the provider has no way of determining this. Under Clause 6(3), an account provider must open an account if an application is made in accordance with Clause 6 and its regulations, and there is a penalty under Clause 21 if the account provider does not do this. It is reasonable for the account provider to check that a declaration has been made, but it is not reasonable for an account provider to ensure that the declaration is true. There is a penalty on a person who deliberately makes an incorrect declaration under Clause 6(2)(b), which is presumably one that is untrue. It is surely only in relation to the account holder that truth is relevant. Linked to this are the regulations to be made under subsection (4) about circumstances in which the account provider may or must refuse to open an account. Amendment 28 deletes subsection (4) on a probing basis. The draft regulations at Regulation 13 require a provider not to open an account if it has reason to believe that the declaration is untrue. But providers do not seem to be required to make specific inquiries as to truth and thus the addition of the word "true" in Clause 6(2)(b) is misleading, as truth does not affect the provider unless the provider is somehow on notice that the declaration might not be true. Leaving the word "true" in the Bill may require the provider to carry out procedures to verify the truth of the declaration which, in some cases, might be quite difficult. An example is a person's residence status. What should a provider do proactively about establishing residence status? Or are providers simply to take information that comes to them? Regulation 13 also requires the refusal of an application if the notice of eligibility might not be genuine. What do providers have to do in relation to notices to establish whether they might or might not be genuine? What can they rely on? Providers' staff may not handle more than a few notices each year and I will wager that notices will not be forgery proof. Modern photocopiers produce amazing copies nowadays and photocopied banknotes, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Myners, learnt when on the Court of the Bank of England, can fool most of the people most of the time. It is likely that it would be easy to forge a notice if people wanted to. My question on this regulation is: what are providers expected to do with notices to establish their genuineness? These two amendments ask the Minister to say why the word "true" is included in Clause 6(2)(b) and, more broadly, to explain what providers are meant to do before they open an account, either in relation to the truth of a declaration or in relation to the genuineness of a notice. I beg to move.