Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

Amendment 35 would amend Clause 8(1), which deals with the amount that may be paid as a maturity payment, so that the maximum matching rate, which is to be set by regulations, does not exceed £1. That would represent a rate of matching of 100 per cent. The Government have stated that they intend the matching payment to be at the rate of 50p per qualifying £1 balance. We have no problem with that, but inevitably they are taking a power in the name of flexibility to set the amount in regulations and have put no maximum on it. We can see that flexibility might be desirable and are aware that the affirmative procedure is required for an order under Clause 8(1). Nevertheless, we feel that there should be some overall constraint on the amount that could be paid, otherwise we will be legislating for a power that could be subverted to pay ridiculous multiples of saving, perhaps as a way of channelling tax-free amounts to certain categories of individual without proper parliamentary consideration. The affirmative procedure is clearly better than the negative procedure but, as we have pointed out in many debates on Bills, it gives relatively little influence to Parliament over the Executive, since the option of voting down a statutory instrument is wisely not followed except in the most exceptional cases. That is why I have proposed an additional restraint in primary legislation. The Bill allows for a subsidised savings mechanism through the saving gateway. I do not believe that we should use that to create a legislative framework that could stray beyond that noble cause; we should restrict it to what could reasonably be regarded as an incentive to save and not leave an open-ended power on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.