Ian Pearson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Economic and Business), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Dudley South, Labour)

Let me not reiterate the previous arguments about why this issue is better dealt with by regulations than in the Bill. There is a clear case that according to the framework of legislation, the principles should be in primary legislation and much of the technical detail in regulations. This matter falls into the latter category.

The hon. Member for Fareham mentioned the evidence of Adrian Coles of the Building Societies Association. He is therefore aware that we continue to have a dialogue with potential account providers and their representative bodies. There may be alternative methods of communicating with account holders, such as through passbooks, which he mentioned. It may also be possible by e-mail, although I require convincing that contact by e-mail will be sufficient. Many of the low-income groups that we are talking about kick-starting the saving habit among are unlikely to have easy internet access. However, the BSA made a valid point that we will continue to explore.

The draft regulations indicate that six months is the appropriate period. We think it right that regulations provide the flexibility to alter the frequency of statement issue. We also think it right that savers are made aware of the current balance on their accounts. We must get the appropriate information out to savers while keeping to a minimum the burdens involved in doing so for account providers. That is another matter where we must strike the right balance.

We will continue to talk to account providers, the BSA, credit unions and others. We will return to this matter when we debate the affirmative procedure that will introduce the necessary regulations.

See this speech in context