---

Banking Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friend Lord Eccles for their contributions to this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that the amendment gave too much latitude. I always feel that one is damned if one tables a tightly drawn amendment and damned if one tables a principles-based amendment—there is no satisfying some people. I would say that it is better than nothing to require transparency. The Minister has predictably referred, as did my noble friend Lord Eccles, to the content of the code of practice, but that is a rather narrow requirement. It has the opt-out in paragraph 18 for, in effect, public interest, which I have repeated in my own clause because I recognise that some things should not be put into the public domain, at least initially. The requirement in Clause 17, however, is very static: it is how they have regarded, and how they have balanced. It is not about what they think will happen in the future. I assume that the authorities will think about the future and the consequences of the actions they take, which is why I have asked for that to be given. The Minister said that the banks are now going to lay their orders before Parliament but there is no parliamentary process for that, so we will have no opportunity to examine the banks or even the Government on any further detail about the actions. The Minister says that he agrees with the intention but cannot quite bring himself to agree with it. I would like to test the opinion of the House. Division on Amendment 6 Contents 69; Not-Contents 89. Amendment 6 disagreed.