Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

This short debate has been most well informed. I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of publishing data on the operation of the scheme and I agree with the contributions from noble Lords that that evaluation has to be set against the core purpose of the saving gateway as presented to Parliament. I confirm that, as is currently the case for ISAs and child trust funds, we intend that HMRC will collect and publish data on the operation of the scheme. We want to ensure that the content of the data that are published is sufficient to allow as far as possible an evaluation of the operation of the scheme against the clear objectives that we have set. This will require careful consideration of the matters to be covered, in particular whether the matters specified in the noble Baroness’s amendment would be sufficient or whether some variation or addition to that list might be appropriate. In addition, we will wish to consider whether annual publication for the period specified in the amendment would be appropriate or whether, as is the case with data for child trust fund account openings, more frequent publication would be in order. As noble Lords may be aware, the legislation for other government-supported savings accounts, such as ISAs or the child trust funds, contains no such reporting requirement. Despite that, HMRC publishes detailed data on the operation of these schemes. To take one example, noble Lords may well be aware that data are published annually on ISA account subscriptions and valuations. As the Economic Secretary made clear in the other place, it may be that a similar approach is appropriate for the saving gateway. Alternatively, a broader or different range of data might be appropriate. We think that it is too early to put in place any requirements on the data that should be published. We want the data that are published to be sufficient to contribute to an evaluation of the operation of the scheme. While it is likely that this will include at least some of the data specified in the amendment, it may well require considerably more detail and data, and we do not wish the Bill to lock us into an incomplete or inflexible reporting requirement. As experience of ISAs and child trust funds demonstrate, legislation is not required to ensure that appropriate data are published. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, makes an interesting point about the economics of the scheme for the account provider, to which we referred at various points in earlier discussion in Committee. Of course, he uses LIBOR as the benchmark for determining the revenue. Most banks are willing to pay well above LIBOR for secure retail deposit funds and for the opportunity to develop a new customer franchise, so I suspect that the economic advantage will be greater than the 90p that he suggests. But that would be for the banks to determine. On the central thrust of the amendment, it is too early to be prescriptive about the precise detail of reporting, although I fully acknowledge the importance of ensuring that reports are made. As the noble Baroness suggests, there is a cost to this scheme. It is not an insignificant amount and Parliament will need to satisfy itself that the public are getting value for money from the scheme and that the accounts deliver their objective. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.