---

Banking Bill

My Lords, Bradford & Bingley is not a good precedent; I shall try to explain why that is my view. First, on a matter of fact, subsection (8)(a) states that an order may be made. In the case of Bradford & Bingley, the order came in front of Parliament at nine o'clock in the morning and came into effect at eight o'clock in the morning. That was because of the trading, or non-trading, of shares on the market. Clearly, it had to come into effect straight away. So I think that the answer to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Stewartby is that the order has immediate effect. The lapsing is a different matter. That is where we have previously got into the issue of unscrambling. It is impossible to unscramble what was done in the matter of transfer of shares, suspension of their trading on the market and all the other things that follow from that. The other reason that I think that Bradford & Bingley is not a very good example is that the action took place 10 days before Parliament reassembled. It was not right at the beginning of the long recess, it was late in the recess. As we know, when we returned there was immediately the recapitalisation announcement. It may or may not be that Bradford & Bingley was such a serious threat to the financial stability of the market that it was necessary to do that on 29 September. Noble Lords will know that I have had doubts ever since the order was laid about whether it would not have been possible to wait until the recapitalisation scheme and to have included Bradford & Bingley in the scheme, as opposed to taking the action that was taken at the time. I argue strongly to the House that it is not a good idea to proceed on the basis of Bradford & Bingley. Frankly, I am still looking for something that is so unexpected and so difficult that it requires Clause 75(8), although I wholly support the removal of any part of it.