---

Banking Bill

My Lords, there is an extra drama to the recall of Parliament. After all, it means Parliament comes back to discuss that issue, and that issue alone. While Parliament is sitting, the judgment of the Houses might be in the form of a Statement. We do have examples of that with Northern Rock in the past, not under the special resolution procedure, but where the Government had to deal with a difficult situation. Of course, the Government give the information that they can give to the House within that limited framework, the two Houses reach their judgment on whether the Executive should continue to act in the way in which they are acting and they make provision for parliamentary scrutiny. The most obvious provision with regard to Northern Rock was that the legislation would end after one year. I hear what the noble Viscount is saying; that the collapse of a bank is likely mightily to exercise the Members of Parliament in the other place and noble Lords. However, the Government would be able to rely on the good judgment of both Houses in terms of how much the Government were pressed to reveal when discussions were ongoing. If Parliament was recalled solely for that purpose, a Statement, which would convey a limited amount, followed by short questions and answers with no further discussion, would scarcely be looked on as an intelligent use of Parliament’s time. A full-scale debate while information was limited would not be in anyone’s interests. That is why we are against it.