Clause 3 - Requirements to be satisfied
Child Trust Funds Bill
3:45 pm
Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 105, in
clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
I trust that this will be a short debate. I tabled the amendment to find out from the Minister the purpose of subsection (3) and I thought that the best way to do that was to propose that we leave it out.
Subsection (1) states that financial providers must be
''approved by the Inland Revenue''.
Subsection (2) states:
''An account is not a child trust fund unless''
it conforms to regulations introduced by the Inland Revenue. So why do we need subsection (3)? It says that financial providers will only be approved as child trust fund providers if they provide accounts that are child trust funds as defined by subsection (2). That is self-evident if one reads the clause carefully—or so it seemed at midnight last night. What is the point of subsection (3)?