---

Banking Bill

The Minister does not really surprise me, because I know that Ministers like to resist all amendments that are proposed in Committee, but he has rather missed the point of the amendment. With respect, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has also missed it. It was not to require a definition in statute that was therefore immutable except by further primary legislation, but to accept that the code of practice was the right place for such a definition in order to guide those who need to understand how the Bill will be interpreted at any point. The Minister has said that he cannot produce an exhaustive or a definitive meaning. I completely accept that, which is why I used ““meaning”” rather than ““definition””, although perhaps there are wording points here. A code of practice should be there to illuminate certain of the more difficult concepts that appear in the legislation. We have just spent quite a lot of time on Clause 4 and objective 1, which is, "““to protect and enhance the stability of the financial systems of the United Kingdom””." I am suggesting not that there should be a definition in Clause 4 but that the code in Clause 5 should explain what the Government mean at any point. That would take account of the issue of innovation over time, if indeed innovation will affect the meaning of ““financial stability””. The Government have accepted that they should put something in the draft code, in any event, on financial stability, but they resist saying that there should be something on financial stability. It seems that the Government are in a slightly inconsistent position and are trying to say, ““We will tell you what we think about financial stability if we feel like it at the time, but nothing will ever require us to tell the world how we view financial stability at any time””. I believe that the definition in the code is good and workable for today. Whether it is right for all time, I would not like to say. In any event, it would not bind any authority because a code of practice—although this is subject to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—is not a legally binding document. It is simply a document that gives guidance to market participants. I deeply regret the stance that the Minister has to take. He almost tempts me today to take the opinion of the House, but I shall go away and think about the wording of my amendment to see whether I can produce a better one that will pass those Treasury officials who like to resist everything. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 17 withdrawn. Amendment 18 not moved.