Clause 6
5:15 pm
Mark Hoban (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Fareham, Conservative)
If the case is cut and dried, why require that flexibility to be enshrined in legislation? One account sounds like the right number, although in his evidence, Brian Pomeroy suggested that someone might be allowed to have a second attempt under certain circumstances—if they had had to terminate their saving gateway account for reasons beyond their control, for example. I am not quite sure what reasons he had in mind, but there could be exceptional circumstances in which people would be allowed to have more than one account.
If the case is cut and dried, I find it hard to understand why the Economic Secretary cannot put it in the Bill. There are other areas where there is more debate— such as the maturity period or the monthly contribution—where the basis for leaving it to secondary legislation is much more robust. My other comment is that regulations relating to the first exercise of this power and the number of accounts will need to be approved through the affirmative procedure. My understanding of clause 27 is that if the Government decide at a later date to increase the number of saving gateway accounts that people can have, they would not require the use of affirmative procedure. The first use of this power would be approved, but not any subsequent use. Therefore, if the Government use affirmative procedure to agree on one account—as they will do when the regulations come before us—they could later decide to use the powers under subsection (5) to increase that number to 10. In that case, the affirmative procedure would not be used, although there would clearly have been a significant change in the Government’s mind as to why they preferred a number higher than one.
The Economic Secretary should think about changing that, so that when the number of saving gateway accounts are increased—should the Government seek to use that power—that increase would be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative. That would be helpful and, given the costs that might be attached to the change, it would give people confidence that there had been proper parliamentary scrutiny. I will leave that thought in the mind of the Economic Secretary, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.