Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

Amendments 33 and 34 would limit the circumstances in which the transfer of a saving gateway account could take place. It may help if I explain the position on transfers in general, and our intentions, before coming to the amendments themselves. As noble Lords may know, we have said that we are attracted to the idea of saving gateway accounts being transferable between providers—for example, for an account holder who moves and who finds that their current provider is no longer accessible. However, we do not expect transfers to be frequent. Unlike child trust funds and ISAs, these are short-term accounts and it is not likely that account holders will want to change providers regularly to obtain, for instance, a better interest rate. The match payment will be the same with any provider and will be significantly larger than any other return offered by the provider. We also recognise that this remains a considerable concern for potential account providers, as the Public Bill Committee in the other place heard during its evidence sessions, particularly from Ms Helen Banks of the British Bankers’ Association. This is an issue that we will continue to discuss in detail with potential providers and their representative bodies. Whatever the outcome of those discussions, a mechanism will be necessary for transfers to cater for cases where the transfer is triggered by the account provider rather than the account holder. The amendment caters for a couple of specific cases: where a provider’s approval is withdrawn or where a provider is subject to the special resolution regime provided for by the Banking Act 2009. However, the amendment would not allow transfers to be made in a number of other situations triggered by the account provider. It would not, for example, permit transfers to be made where a provider ceased to act as a saving gateway provider by choice, nor would it permit transfers to be made where a provider ceased to qualify for account provider status. In such cases, the amendment would mean that account holders would be stranded and unable to transfer their account elsewhere. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that that would not be a desirable state of affairs. We continue to believe that this is an area that requires further attention and a degree of flexibility. We shall continue to talk with account providers as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. I have again put on the record our continuing commitment to have discussions and to come back to the House in due course. For those reasons, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.