Clause 27
Saving Gateway Accounts Bill
9:30 am
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.