---

Banking Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and my noble friend Lord Eccles for his contribution. The big issue is not as the Minister articulated it; it should be whether the Treasury or the Bank calls the shots. I may well have drafted in HMRC because I had not translated the wording that was in the 1844 Act; I assumed that the successor was the Treasury, but I had not checked that properly. The Minister tried to make the tension between transparency and public interest the issue. It is extraordinary that the Bank has, since 1844, been publishing a weekly return, yet there have been many periods in that time when the Bank has entered into support operations and this issue has never been raised. This issue is being used as a cover for increasing secrecy. If I were a Treasury Minister, which I am not, I would not let the Bank get away with it. I would keep Treasury control over what the Bank does. Current Treasury Ministers seem content to let the Bank retreat into its own version of secrecy. We do not think that that is a good idea, partly because of the issue of transparency about where what is in effect public money is going, but also in part because the weekly return gives important information about whether the printing presses have been unleashed. In today’s environment, that is important information for all those who want to know what the Bank is up to in supporting the economy. I can see that I will not change the Government’s set intent. We shall have to see what happens in practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 104 withdrawn.