---

Banking Bill (Money)

At the beginning of the debate the Minister seemed to say something about working capital that rather surprised me. He said that working capital would be provided only for British banks and that it would not be allowed to cover foreign loans. Some might suggest that that would mean British credit for British business, but surely it would be illegal under EU law. The Minister needs to clarify that—I am sure that he did not mean it, but that is what he seemed to imply. It was interesting that the money resolution went through on a very small vote. The Government could only muster fewer than 300 Members to vote for it, which is way less than half the Members of this House, so clearly there is considerable concern about that open-ended cheque. The Minister could not tell us how much money is involved, because he does not know how much money is involved. However, we are talking about a simply extraordinary amount—billions and billions of pounds. I want to talk about Lords amendment 81 to clause 225, which deals with transparency—or, should I say, the lack of it. We have already heard from the Minister that if there was a major financial crisis in August when Parliament was not sitting, the Treasury could spend billions and billions of pounds off its own bat, and when we came back in October, we might get a report about that. However, proposed new subsection (5) to clause 225 says:"““Where money is paid in reliance on subsection (4)””—" perhaps by the Treasury in the recess—"““the Treasury shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay a report before Parliament specifying the amount paid...but not the identity of the institution””." We would get a report, although it is interesting that we would not know which institutions had received the money. Proposed subsection (6) to clause 225 says:"““If the Treasury””—" and the Treasury alone—"““think it necessary on public interest grounds, they may delay…a report””." That is bad enough, but the words after ““delay”” are:"““or dispense with a report””" altogether. Therefore, a massive amount of money could be spent in the recess that would never be reported to this House, because somebody in the Treasury claimed that Parliament should not be told on public interest grounds. That is what this Government are all about. They do not like debate, they do not like transparency and they want to do everything behind closed doors. This Government's fundamental mistake is not believing in their own arguments and not coming to Parliament to debate them fully. Despite what the Minister claims, we have not had any debate in Government time on the economic situation. We have had a few statements, where a Minister or the Chancellor gets up and spends—