---

Banking Act 2009 (Third Party Compensation Arrangements for Partial Property Transfers) Regulations 2009

I, too, am grateful to the Minister for setting out the background and content of these regulations so fully. As the noble Baroness said, the concerns fall into two parts. The first relates to the consultation procedure and the second to the substance. As far as the consultation procedure is concerned, there is no doubt that the expert liaison group played an important and positive role as the banking Bill was going through the House. The regulations that we see today are the fruits of its work. Equally, the Banking Liaison Panel should carry forward at least the spirit of that work. The noble Baroness talked about the fear of the process becoming secret. One has to strike a balance—which she discussed. We want the process to be transparent but should avoid everyone spending their time reporting on what they are doing rather than doing it. In terms of good process, the process that led to the regulations that amended the Lloyds market had a lot to recommend it in the way in which it was reported to Parliament. We had a set of statutory instruments with a document attached—which was rather fuller than the documentation we have had today—that set out the representations that had been made and, as the noble Baroness suggested, the Government’s response to them. Therefore, at the time the statutory instruments came forward, we had a narrative of all the issues that had been raised, where there were still outstanding difficulties and why the Government had not felt able to accept proposals that had been made. That was a very satisfactory way of proceeding and is probably more satisfactory than having endless minutes, although, if one wants, one can have them as well. The noble Baroness set out the concerns expressed by the BBA and others on the substance of the regulations. As the process moves on, the concerns become more technical and narrower. When we started, we were both being lobbied by the banking industry on the basis that unless the Bill changed quite significantly, it would be the end of banking as we know it in London. Although there is still a faint echo of that in the representations, great progress has been made. I was always slightly sceptical, given everything else that is going on in world financial markets, that London’s position would be undermined to the extent that was suggested if this legislative framework was not absolutely right at first blush. It is important that further discussions go ahead between now and the summer so that any outstanding concerns can be addressed as far as possible. However, I would be slightly surprised if, at the end of the process, there was not at least one eminent lawyer who disagreed with the consensus. My experience, not least in listening to eminent lawyers in your Lordships' House, is that getting consensus on many of these technical matters is absolutely impossible and, beyond a certain point, not worth seeking. Finally, I echo the point made by the noble Baroness about the 21-day rule. It is difficult to see many circumstances in which the 21-day rule should not be followed. The terminology used by the Treasury is typical Treasury-speak; namely, "Oh, I suppose we might do this if we’ve got no option", rather than, "We will do it, unless there is a real emergency".