Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Noakes (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 February 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Banking Bill.


Banking Bill

My Lords, we now reach the final substantive amendment that we have to consider today on Report, for which I am sure we will all give thanks. The amendment is also one that I chose not to move at the end of Committee last week, and it raises slightly different issues. I propose in the amendment to delete subsections (4) and (5) from Clause 256. I want to probe the rather unusual procedure of having a rather long list of statutory instruments which are to be made for the first time using a procedure for approval after the event. I am aware of the need for speed for at least some of the orders listed in subsection (5) to be up and running as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. We have already debated that, in particular in relation to Clauses 47 and 48, which deal with partial transfers, netting and set-off and related transactions. Others are clearly in the same category. My problem is that the amendments have the potential to be controversial. I am thinking in particular of the partial transfer order expected to be made under Clause 48. The Minister will be aware that there are still considerable concerns about the carve-outs in that order and whether they will prove to be positively harmful to banking practices. I believe that further drafts of the statutory instrument are still awaited, and there is a further meeting involving lawyers tomorrow. We are only 10 days or so away from Royal Assent, and that means that the order could be made in a form that has not been fully consulted on, which does not necessarily command the support of the banks and could, in extremis, damage their businesses. Part of the purpose of tabling these amendments is to obtain from the Minister a view on the path, from now until Royal Assent, for getting in particular this important statutory instrument under Clause 48, so that it is available immediately Royal Assent is given. As he will be aware, any gap where the detailed rules are not set out in the statutory instrument will be regarded as a major problem by the banking community. The list of powers in Clause 256 is quite long, and not all of them seem to be in the urgent category. While I can see that some powers have to be implemented very quickly, I am not clear that the Government have good justification for saying that all of these orders need to be made urgently. I am also not aware of whether drafts of all of them are available and being consulted on, which raises the question of whether the appropriate procedure for all of these orders in the first instance is not the one where approval is effectively given in arrear. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c658 
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