Clause 1
10:30 am
Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat)
I welcome you, Mr. Bercow, and everyone else to the Committee. I am sure that I will be first of many to say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship.
By way of introduction, may I say that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill’s broad principles? We see virtue in incentivising people who are on low incomes to save money. The savings will serve as a buffer against unexpected emergency expenditure. Such accounts should inculcate a savings culture and spread a sense of asset-owning stakes in society.
As one might expect, clause 1 defines the savings gateway account. I confess that amendments 1 and 2 are somewhat finickity. They are designed to improve the Bill’s drafting, rather than to make a broader political point. Clause 1 states that the account holder must first receive a notice of eligibility and secondly be
“an eligible person at the relevant date”.
However, they will not receive a notice of eligibility unless they are an eligible person at the relevant date. The wording is therefore unnecessarily complicated. Amendment 1 would delete the requirement to have received a notice of eligibility. There is no reason why a person who is eligible under clause 3 should have to wait for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to issue a notice. If they have to wait, the danger is that they will be subject to any administrative inadequacies that arise at HMRC. For example, if there was a backlog or a notice was lost in the post, a person who was deemed to be eligible would suffer.
I could speak at greater length, but I have made the point. It is not a major point, but one about drafting. The Economic Secretary may wish to consider not putting that additional obstacle in the way of people who want an account. If they are eligible, the additional criteria are unnecessary.