Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 27, page 13, line 1, leave out ‘The first’.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 16, in clause 27, page 13, line 4, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment 17, in clause 27, page 13, line 7, leave out ‘The first’.

Amendment 18, in clause 27, page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (8).

Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat)

There is a somewhat ritualistic quality to these amendments, in that they require subsequent changes to the Bill, subject to the positive procedure. In a way, therefore, we are making a more general point about the right of this House to scrutinise legislation—a point that parties in opposition tend to make with greater zeal than those in government do.

Having said that, on this occasion the amendments are slightly more than just ritualistic, because the Committee will see that there are some particularly high-profile provisions such as the 50p rate of Government contribution—we touched on that in our previous discussions—that will come back to this House for any changes that the Government envisage ought to be made at a future date. However, there are endless provisions for which that is not the case. In fact, I think that I said on Second Reading that there are 32 clauses in the Bill and 29 delegated powers, so we are almost at the point where what the Government get to decide on is greater than what we are passing into law in this Committee and in the Commons Chamber.

As we have discussed in our deliberations on previous clauses, some of the powers that the Government have taken upon themselves, without our having the opportunity  to consider them with any great certainty in this Committee, are quite substantial and would affect the workings of the provision of the saving gateway accounts and thereby affect our constituents. If the Government are going to go down the path of allowing a huge amount of flexibility, which is clearly the preferred option, when they come back with changes in practice to the Bill, we, as Members of the House of Commons, should have the opportunity to scrutinise those changes as fully as we think appropriate.

Mark Hoban (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Fareham, Conservative)

I partly support the hon. Member for Taunton in his amendments. On the first two, it is right that any changes to the tax status of these accounts should be dealt with by affirmative resolution not just in the first use of these powers but subsequently. We could end up with a situation in which a future Government decided to tax the income or the matching payment on these accounts without the requirement to debate that measure in Parliament unless someone prays against it. So, the key features of this Bill should be subject to affirmative resolution when there are subsequent amendments.

I am very sceptical about the requirement for every subsequent adjustment to be covered by affirmative resolution. We need to be pragmatic in deciding where the use of affirmative resolution is appropriate and where it is not. I am also minded to say that it is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to propose these measures, but in the end, he or his colleagues are required to turn up to the relevant debates. I found that out in a debate on Monday afternoon, when it was just the Economic Secretary and myself on the Front Benches, with no representative on the Liberal Front Bench. So the hon. Gentleman should be very wary about what he calls for in these amendments.

Ian Pearson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Economic and Business), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Dudley South, Labour)

As hon. Members appreciate, clause 27 relates to the delegated powers in the Bill. We have debated these issues at several points in this Committee already. It is clear that the Bill contains a number of delegated powers. These amendments would not remove the delegated powers, but they would affect the procedure to be followed when they are used. It might therefore be helpful if I set out the position as the Bill stands and the rationale behind it. As the hon. Member for Fareham said regarding the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton, it simply would not be appropriate to deal with every such proposal through the affirmative procedure. It would not strike the appropriate balance, and we think that we have struck the right balance.

Generally, the first use of the delegated powers in the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but subsequent uses will be subject to the negative procedure, and hon. Members will be familiar with the process by which they can pray against statutory instruments and debate them. This approach is intended to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the details of the saving gateway when it is introduced, and to provide the subsequent flexibility to make minor or technical changes to the scheme.

There are five exceptions to the rule, however. The use of the order-making power in subsection (5) will be subject to the negative procedure on each use. The power allows an order to amend the list of enactments in subsection (4), which may, by the regulations under subsection (3) be applied to saving gateway appeals.  This may be necessary to ensure that the appeals procedure for the saving gateway remains consistent with other appeals regimes. Any enactments that are added to the list in subsection (4) would have been subject to full parliamentary scrutiny already, and that is a narrower power, so the negative procedure is appropriate.

Four delegated powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure on each use. These include all three delegated powers on eligibility to the saving gateway: the power in clause 3(1)(b) for regulations to set out the UK connection that is required of a person to be eligible to open a saving gateway account; the power in clause 3(4) for regulations to prescribe the conditions that must be met for a person to be eligible through entitlement to tax credits; and the power in clause 3(6) for an order to amend the list of qualifying benefits and tax credits. Eligibility is a central feature of the saving gateway, so it is right that any change be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. The same is true of the match rate—the maturity payment amount that will be earned for each pound saved. The power to set the amount under regulations under clause 8(1) is, therefore, the fourth delegated power that will be subject to the affirmative procedure on each use.

The amendments would mean that the use of all the Bill’s regulation-making powers—not just those four—would be subject to the affirmative procedure on each use, and, as I hope I have explained, we do not believe that that would be appropriate. On the point that the hon. Member for Fareham made about tax relief and whether the affirmative procedure should be used every time, we have no intention of changing the fact that saving gateway accounts will be tax free. The powers might be used to reflect changes in tax legislation and they are likely to be technical. On our general position, however, we want the accounts to be tax free, and that is why the Bill is structured as it is.

The general rule of following the affirmative procedure for the powers’ first use and the negative procedure on subsequent uses strikes the right balance between ensuring that Parliament can fully scrutinise the details—we all appreciate that much of the Bill is left to the details—and, once scrutiny has taken place, having the flexibility to make minor or technical subsequent changes to the scheme through the negative procedure, which can be prayed against. We have reached our position based on those reasons, so I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton will withdraw his amendment.

Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat)

Without wishing to be disloyal to my colleagues, I should clarify for the record that I was not due to serve on the Committee. In centuries to come, when people read the account, they may not appreciate how bad the weather was on Monday. It meant that quite a few Members missed the proceedings in the House, although I was not one of them; I was busy elsewhere in the building.

On the substantive point, I appreciate that the Economic Secretary has sought to try to find a sensible position from which to pitch the Government’s stance on the matter, and I understand the logic of his position. The hon. Member for Fareham made a reasonable point about tax exemption, and although the Economic Secretary is entirely trustworthy, it is a good idea in general to  make the assumption that future Ministers might not always have the best will of the House at heart. Nevertheless, I understand the Economic Secretary’s point, and having made my argument through my amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet, Labour)

I have a quick question for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that I am happy for him to answer in writing if he cannot answer it immediately. Under subsection (2), the Government seem to have a wide power to exercise discretion by regulation. How far can that discretion extend? If I were to fail to convince my hon. Friend to include recipients of carer’s allowance in the Bill when we come back to the matter on Report, would that discretion allow him to include those recipients at a later date, without having to introduce primary legislation?

Ian Pearson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Economic and Business), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Dudley South, Labour)

Very briefly, I shall explain subsection (2). It provides that any order or regulation made under the delegated powers given by the Bill may allow a person to exercise discretion in relation to any matter, including residential, supplementary, consequential or transitional provision or savings. It also provides for a person to exercise discretion in relation to making different provision for different cases. That is necessary to allow regulations or orders to contain some flexibility. The power in clause 3(6) allows qualifying benefits to be amended under the affirmative procedure. I think that my hon. Friend will be looking to that clause, rather than clause 27, if he wants to seek the remedy that he is proposing.