---

Banking Bill

Clause 24: Procedure: instruments Amendment 50 50: Clause 24, page 11, line 13, at end insert— ““( ) As soon as is reasonably practicable, the Treasury shall lay a copy of the copy share transfer instrument sent to it under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”” I shall speak also to the other three amendments in the group. Two of them, Amendments 51 and 76, derive from the first report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in 2008-09, which is a signal to the Minister that we expect its recommendation to be taken seriously, and I shall start with those two amendments. Where the Treasury makes a share transfer order, it must make it by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. There is therefore accountability to Parliament of a sort. The Committee will doubtless recall that the equivalent provisions in the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 were the subject of a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the affirmative procedure be used. The Government rejected that recommendation then and continue to apply only the negative procedure. I say that by way of background. The Minister will be pleased to see that that I have not tabled an amendment that would return to that issue. The Bill takes new powers for the Bank of England to make share transfer instruments and property transfer instruments to give effect to its private sector purchaser and bridge bank powers. Those instruments are subject to no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out that a transfer by the Bank of England may be considered by some to be similar to temporary public ownership, the implication being that the parliamentary procedure should be the same. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who is unfortunately no longer in his place, raised that point earlier this afternoon. In any event, the committee stated in paragraph 4 of its report that, "““the House will wish to seek a justification from the Government for the proposed absence of any Parliamentary procedure for instruments relating to transfer to a private purchaser, and in particular for instruments relating to transfer to a bridge bank. In the absence of such a justification, the House may wish to consider applying a measure of Parliamentary control over such instruments””." Amendments 51 and 76 do just that. They give the same degree of parliamentary control over share and property transfer instruments as over share transfer orders. I had already drafted Amendment 50 before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report was available. I have left it on the Marshalled List as a possible alternative way forward. It requires the Treasury to lay a share transfer instrument before Parliament, but has no other parliamentary procedure attached to it. I should have tabled a twin of that amendment for Clause 41, but failed to do so. Amendment 52 relates to share transfer orders, which are subject to parliamentary procedure, and raises a slightly different point. The clause places an obligation on the Treasury to act as soon as reasonably practicable in telling the Bank and the world in general, but there is no sense of urgency about telling Parliament. Amendment 52 rectifies that and ensures that Parliament is at least informed at the same time as everyone else. It should be noted that subsections (2) of both Clauses 24 and 41 require the Bank to put the share transfer on its website and publish it in two newspapers. The focus appears to be on informing those who may have had dealings with the failed bank. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is certainly not the appropriate way for Parliament to be informed, which is why my amendment refers to the customary method of informing Parliament by way of laying a copy before each House. I look forward to hearing the Minister's justification for bypassing Parliament when the Bank of England exercises the substantial powers conferred by the Bill, and I beg to move.