---

Banking Bill

My Lords, Amendment 110 repeats the amendment that my noble friend Lady Noakes moved in Committee. The Government have moved some way to improve parts of the Bill. They have strengthened the reporting duties around public ownership provisions, and the powers to make loans in Clause 228. They have accepted a few, although not all, of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations about the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. In Committee, the Minister admitted that he agreed with the general principle of this amendment, namely the need for proper review of the legislation. He even gave assurances that the Government would ensure that, "““all elements of the scheme are appropriately covered by a review””.—[Official Report, 26/01/09; col. 165.]" The Minister also recognised that problems might arise, in particular with partial transfers, and made the point that it might be desirable to evaluate the effects of that part of the legislation more frequently than annually. There is nothing to stop there being as many reviews as the Minister would like. It is important that the review of the Act takes place, that it cannot be avoided and that it does not take place behind closed doors. Her Majesty's Government have accepted that the provisions of the Bill have the potential to cause legal uncertainty in many areas where certainty is critical for the stability and competitiveness of our financial sector. Meetings to attempt to reduce this uncertainty are ongoing, but with such wide powers given to this Government to change the secondary legislation, it will be impossible to remove the uncertainty entirely. The Bill is intended to preserve the stability and competitiveness of our financial institutions. The amendment would go a long way to reassuring all involved that the Government are serious about taking an objective, non-partisan approach to resolving problems in the banking sector. The non-partisan element is essential, which is why the amendment calls for an independent review, not an internal review. The assessment of the impact of the Bill as a whole is also crucial. In his comments, the Minister made no mention of when a review might be held. If the Government are given too much flexibility in how their commitment to a review is fulfilled, there is a risk that the review may become postponed indefinitely. This amendment is not unusual and the Government have frequently accepted the force of these arguments on previous occasions. In the recent Pensions Act 2008, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, appreciated that there was a very real chance that private sector provision could be seriously disrupted by the establishment of personal accounts. Therefore, he took the sensible and responsible step of accepting that there should be a duty to review the scheme. I hope that the Minister will come to the same conclusion in respect of this complex and unprecedented piece of legislation. I beg to move.