Proceeding contribution from Baroness Noakes (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Banking Bill.
Banking Bill
As we say in Committee, I shall have to read that in Hansard. Perhaps I could respond more generally to the debate that we have had on Amendments 4 and 5. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The one thing that has emerged is that there is no unanimity on who should be in charge. The Minister rightly said that Mr John McFall in another place asked that question during the Northern Rock crisis and got no answer. Today, we have had two votes for the Bank of England, a couple of votes for the Treasury and a couple of votes for no one. Perhaps there is no unanimity of view in Committee on the way forward. A serious issue remains—that the Bill, by implying that somehow everything will come out harmoniously, misses the point. In a practical sense, when things start to go wrong, leadership has to be exercised, and you cannot expect a committee or a set of three or more organisations to exercise collective leadership, because that simply does not work. If the Minister has any examples from his wide experience in the commercial world, I would be pleased to hear from him, but I have not come across any. I continue to think it important that someone should be in charge. My other point related to needing to ensure that all parties are kept informed. The Minister referred to the primary clauses powers in Clauses 8 and 9, where there clearly are some cross-reference points, and there are some other clauses with cross-reference points. There are also some other powers that are taken in the Bill that do not have explicit cross-reference points, yet one would imagine that the tripartite authorities would be keeping themselves informed on a much more detailed basis. My point remains that the Bill does not describe the workings of the tripartite authorities in relation to cases of bank failure, and that is a pity. I shall read the noble Lord’s explanation in Hansard to see if it makes more sense on the printed page than it did when I heard it and I will consider further whether I shall return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 4 withdrawn. Amendment 5 not moved. Clause 1 agreed.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 706 c1134-5
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Codes of practice Accountability Administration Assets Bank services Banks Credit unions Building societies Bank of England Deposits Financial institutions Insolvency Legislation Government assistance Financial Services Authority Financial markets Foreign companies Protection Public sector Public expenditure Nationalisation Terrorism Regulation Shareholders Treasury Financial Services Compensation Scheme Northern Rock Freezing of assets
- Legislation
- Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 18:47:41 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517690
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517690
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_517690