moved Amendment No. 14:
14: Clause 12, page 11, line 34, leave out paragraph (a)
The noble Lord said: I have tabled this amendment, and Amendment No. 15, to give the Minister the opportunity to explain why he has not seen fit to table amendments addressing the concerns and recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee regarding this clause. Its report makes it clear that the powers in this clause should be subject to the affirmative procedure, yet they are noticeably absent from the list of orders on which the Government have conceded that procedure.
The DPRRC report also considered the two paragraphs specifically mentioned in my amendments to be particularly unusual, and requested that they be adequately justified. I look forward to hearing what justification the Minister might put forward in response. In particular, I am interested to hear what ““rule of law”” he could imagine needing to be ““disapplied”” as the result of nationalising a bank or building society. Does he think that the powers in this clause will be used as a consequence of the nationalisation of Northern Rock, or are these yet more of the precautionary powers that the Government are insisting on including, while denying ever having the intention of using them? I beg to move.
Banking (Special Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord De Mauley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 21 February 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Banking (Special Provisions) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c335 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:47:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447024
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447024
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447024