Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

In principle, I always hesitate about demanding too many reports from the public service and government, as that is a very easy thing to do. However, I support the amendment for two reasons. The first is that the information requested in subsection (2) is very simple. If I had oversight of this scheme in the public service, I would expect to have that information. I once was a senior civil servant. If I was in that position and did not have this information, I would feel that I was not doing my duty. The information is easily obtainable; the providers themselves must surely have it. We are not dealing with a complicated request in this case. For that reason, it is not unreasonable that the information should be in the public domain. The second reason why I support the amendment is that this is not a savings scheme like the sort of schemes that National Savings & Investments put out from time to time. It is a different type of savings scheme. It has a policy objective, which the Government have stated: to promote a saving habit among working-age people on lower incomes and to promote financial inclusion by encouraging people to engage with mainstream financial services. Those are legitimate objectives, which I strongly support. However, they differentiate this scheme, which is why I think that we should have the information in the public domain. In my view, this will apply with even more impact to the next amendment, Amendment 40, which, as the Minister will remember, in the days before he set off for Cornwall I stated that I would be supporting. However, it also applies with some force to the current amendment.