My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sure that he will elaborate on it in the debate.
We do not support the proposed nationalisation, but, if it is to happen, we want to ensure that the legislation is workable and as fair as possible; that Northern Rock will be managed without political interference; and that competition in the market will not be distorted. We want to ensure that the process is open and transparent and that Parliament is properly informed of the progress of the company in public ownership.
If the Government had those interests at heart, they would have done in their draft what we must now try to do through amendments: turn their warm assurances on arm's-length management, lack of political interference—a commitment that was made yesterday and broken within the hour by the appointment of Tom Scholar to the board of Northern Rock—and unfair competition into binding legislative constraints.
We are willing to work through the night tonight to ensure a proper Committee stage. We are happy to sit on Friday to deal properly with Lords amendments. However, an ““emergency”” apparently occurs only when it suits the Government to override Parliamentary procedure, not when it risks Labour Members having to do a bit of a nightshift.
We signalled our willingness to co-operate on a timetabled passage of a Northern Rock nationalisation Bill. We did not—and, in conscience, could not—acquiesce in the procedure for a Bill of extended duration and broad application. Twenty-four clauses and two schedules cannot properly be scrutinised in this House in the time proposed. Inevitably, the burden will fall on the other place. That means that Lords amendments are likely to be tabled, which, again, cannot be scrutinised by this House in the single hour allotted for that purpose.
Taken together, the length of the Bill, its broad definition and the inadequacy of the time provided make the motion unacceptable. On the basis that the Government have our word that, if the business motion is defeated, we will not delay Third Reading in this House beyond 6 am tomorrow morning, and that we will deal with any Lords amendments returned to this House during the course of Thursday night and Friday morning, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
Banking (Special Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hammond of Runnymede
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 February 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Banking (Special Provisions) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c162 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 22:57:17 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446017
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446017
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446017