Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 February 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Banking Bill.
Banking Bill
My Lords, I hope I will be briefer in dealing with these amendments than I was with the substantial amendments we discussed in the previous group. We are still dealing with Clause 75. It is a crucial part of the Bill and the Government will not have it amended to the extent that it becomes unusable. Of course the House has repeated regularly that Parliament must be allowed to play its essential role in holding the Executive to account regarding this proposed legislation. The clause recognises that by making the exercise of the power subject to the draft affirmative procedure. However, as was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, subsection (8) allows orders to be made under the clause subject to the 28-day procedure. That procedure is designed to cope with matters that have to be dealt with urgently, and in this case, the context is the resolution of a particular failing bank. The order will be used only when absolutely necessary. It is by way of a special provision with regard to affirmative orders, recognising that the Executive must act in certain circumstances and seek parliamentary support afterwards. The challenge that we are facing is to enable parliamentary scrutiny without compromising the authorities’ ability to use the stabilisation options swiftly and effectively. I am aware that noble Lords, like the Government, have sought a number of ways of tackling what we on all sides appreciate is a thorny issue. We have listened very carefully to the representations that have been made during the passage of the Bill. That is why we have brought forward an amendment that we think meets the concerns expressed. I am not able to accept the amendments before the House today other than those proposed by the Government. One option that was suggested, but not brought forward in an amendment, is that Parliament should be recalled. We rejected that. When we are dealing with a volatile situation, the last thing the country would need is the sense of emergency that is heightened by the recall of Parliament. The debate would be taking place in the middle of complex bank resolution and would be fraught with difficulties about how much the Government could disclose about the transactions that were taking place at the time. It would place enormous pressure on both Houses with regard to how they could effect scrutiny while being in the dark about certain parts of the negotiations. What we need is a process that will allow Parliament to hold the Executive to account effectively, while allowing that the bank resolution procedure can work. Recalling Parliament certainly would not work.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 707 c573-4
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Compensation Consumers Accountability Audit Assets Debts Bank services Banks Delegated legislation Advisory services Bank of England Finance Liability Financial institutions Insolvency Government assistance Financial Services Authority Holding companies Protection Payments Public interest Public sector Public expenditure Parliamentary scrutiny Loans Post offices Post Office Nationalisation Regulation Rural areas Treasury Financial Services Compensation Scheme National Loans Fund Financial Stability Committee Sunset clauses Retrospective legislation
- Legislation
- Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 09:32:39 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_526189
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_526189
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_526189