---

Banking Bill

This amendment raises the tricky question of what the Government say when they are exercising this regime, and when they say it. When we discussed the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill, we agreed that the negative resolution procedure was a sensible way in which to go forward, because we foresaw—as was the case with Northern Rock—the need to move quickly at times. Also, it was easier to deal with an issue when Parliament was not sitting. In practice what we had, which none of us envisaged at the time, was a second use of the legislation in the case of Bradford & Bingley. There was a general view that on the annulment procedure, despite the noble Lord’s attempts to get a debate on it—which we had—we did not get a sensible explanation of why the Government had acted quite in the way they had, and they were not geared up to provide one. This amendment is a way of squaring the circle. It enables the Government to take action quickly, when they feel it is necessary—or enables the tripartite authority to take action quickly when it feels it is necessary—without significant prior parliamentary debate. Equally, after the event, it gives Parliament and the nation a substantial and explanation for what has been done. The Government may want to tinker with the precise form in which the procedure is set out in the amendment, but the principles that the amendment embodies are extremely sensible—and are, frankly, to the benefit of the Government, who are given an opportunity to explain formally what they have done and why they have done it.