Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

In moving Amendment 29, I shall speak to Amendments 30 and 32 in this group. These amendments relate to whether it might be possible for a person to have more than one subsidised shot at creating a savings habit. However desirable it is for savings to be encouraged, this particular saving gateway scheme should be available only once; after that, an individual must not expect to be able to gain further access to the extraordinarily favourable terms that the saving gateway scheme embodies. Clause 6(5) permits regulations to do several things. Paragraph (a) refers to preventing a person from holding more than one saving gateway account at a time. Amendment 29 changes this so that it would prevent a person holding a saving gateway account more than once in a lifetime. That is what the draft regulations currently allow, so we are not out of line with government thinking on that. But, as we often find, the Government are legislating for the flexibility to do something which they have no current intention of doing and which goes against the advice of their own advisers. We do not think that that is a sound basis on which to approach legislation. Mr Brian Pomeroy and Ms Sharon Collard gave evidence on this topic to the Public Bill Committee in another place. Mr Pomeroy, who I have known for many years and who I respect, chairs the Government’s Financial Inclusion Taskforce, which includes savings in its remit. He was very clear that only one shot should be allowed, as was Ms Collard, who had a detailed understanding from her involvement in the evaluation of the first pilot. I propose to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (5) in Amendment 30. Paragraph (b) allows the specification of an interval before a second gateway account is opened and is unnecessary following my amendment to paragraph (a). Paragraph (c) allows regulations to prevent a person holding more than one saving gateway account during his or her lifetime and is similarly redundant if the flexibility is removed around more than one account. Lastly, and as an alternative, I have proposed in Amendment 32 that, if the regulation-making power is retained, it is accompanied by the affirmative procedure. It is clearly inappropriate for the Government to make such a radical change to the scheme that they are setting up using only the negative procedure. They are setting the scheme up on the basis that it is only one saving gateway account per lifetime. We believe that it would require significant evidence in relation to savings behaviour to shift from the agreed starting position that only one saving gateway account should be allowed for individuals in their lifetime. The Government should not be allowed to sneak something through on a negative procedure instrument and expect the Opposition, with their eagle eyes, to spot that it was being sneaked through. They should come clean on making such a major change to the nature of the scheme. I hope the Minister can see that it is blindingly obvious that, if there were to be any change, the Government should bring forward an affirmative regulation. I beg to move.