I welcome the fact that the Front-Bench spokesmen of both main Opposition parties appear to welcome the amendments, and I hope they will support them. I think that the only point I need to come back to is the reason why the maturity period in the Bill is not less than 12 months and the rest is in regulations. As I have said, we believe that less than 12 months would not represent saving, and that is why we are stating that minimum in the Bill. We want to leave flexibility for regulations to set the minimum period. Leaving that in secondary legislation provides the flexibility to alter that feature of the accounts if, for example, the experience of operating the national scheme suggested a different account length would better achieve the aims of the saving gateway. That is why we want to put that in regulations. Under Lords amendment 8, the maturity period would be subject to the affirmative procedure and to parliamentary scrutiny in this House.
Lords amendment 3 agreed to.
Lords amendments 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Saving Gateway Accounts Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Sarah McCarthy-Fry
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Saving Gateway Accounts Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c418-9 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:23:16 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573135
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573135
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_573135