Clause 52
Finance Bill
1:15 pm
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster, Conservative)
I wish to speak briefly to oppose the amendment. To raise £100 a year in a standard, current or gold service account seems trivial but, in the low interest-rate economy in which we now live, it would need an ongoing balance of around £20,000. It is in part a function of the low interest-rate economy—which will be with us for at least the tenure of this Finance Act—that that seems a sensible de minimis level. I understand the rightful concern that we do not want anything too pettifogging, with too many different rules. In this context, the difference between a minimum of £100 and one of £500 might seem trivial, but it would require a six-figure sum in a current account to raise £500 a year, as interest rates tend to be below 0.5 per cent., even for the most generous basic savers accounts.
The hon. Member for Taunton is absolutely right that we should encourage those non-domiciles who are not well off. In my own central London constituency, there are significant numbers of people—perhaps spouses, ex-spouses or relatives of wealthy investment bankers—who are non-domiciled but are not as well off as the general image suggests. It is fair that they should have a reasonable day-to-day balance of a few months’ living expenses under their belts—perhaps as much £10,000 or £15,000 a year—well within the constraints that the Government and Treasury have in mind. If there were significant increases in interest rates in the foregoing 12 months I hope that the Treasury would return to this and raise that minimum threshold. At this juncture, £100 is a relatively sensible one to have in place.