Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

I can be brief on Amendment 36, which seeks to amend Clause 9 so that the regulation-making power in relation to statements has to provide that statements are not to be provided more frequently than six monthly unless an account is closed. This was debated in another place and again goes to the heart of an issue on which we have touched several times: the costs that the saving gateway scheme might impose on providers and the impact that that would have on the willingness of providers to get involved. The Government have wisely provided for six-monthly statements in their draft regulations—we welcome that—but there can be no certainty for providers that the rules of the game will not be changed once they have signed up to be saving gateway providers. If the economics of saving gateway accounts are finely balanced with six-monthly accounts, the business case could be wrecked by a subsequent decision by the Government, perhaps under pressure from consumer groups, to increase statement frequency. If banks and other potential providers have to make their business case with this risk embedded in the calculations, they may not proceed. It is not only the banks that are concerned about costs. As we touched on during our first day in Committee, the evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place showed that the building societies also had concerns about costs. Even the managing director of the Post Office, while undoubtedly optimistic and enthusiastic about getting involved in saving gateway accounts, gave equivocal evidence about the economic viability of the saving gateway scheme. The amendment would provide a small protection, which would cost the Government nothing to concede. If there ever were a competitive landscape for saving gateway accounts, the frequency of statements might well increase if account holders valued them and that provided a competitive advantage. No one would need to legislate for powers to achieve that; it could just happen. But to leave open the possibility that the Government could tighten the terms of the scheme at a later stage is simply not helpful. I beg to move.