moved Amendment No. 1:
1: After Clause 7, Insert the following new Clause—
““Management scheme
Where an order is made under section 3 the Treasury shall, not later than the day that the order is made, lay before both Houses of Parliament a Minute setting out a scheme for the management of the authorised United Kingdom deposit-taker,
including provisions setting out the strategic objectives for the business as determined by the Treasury and further provisions to ensure the independent day-to-day management of the business of the authorised deposit-taker to achieve these objectives.””
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the amendment was discussed in Committee it was appropriately grouped with two Liberal Democrat amendments dealing with similar, but not identical, matters. Whereas the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, focused on the business plan that Northern Rock would follow, our amendment looked in addition at the framework agreement that would govern the relationship between the Treasury and the board of Northern Rock. I know the Minister addressed the matter to a certain extent during the debate, but whereas I was pleased to note his categorical assurance that the business plan would be published and laid before Parliament, I did not catch the same assurance for the framework agreement.
It is quite possible that the amendment is unnecessary and that he did indeed make that assurance. It is unfortunate that Hansard has been unable to keep up with the debates earlier today to the extent that I could check the on-line text before returning to the Chamber. Indeed, it is one of the many disadvantages of rushing legislation through in this manner that on entering the next procedural stage one has hardly the time to recover from the previous one, let alone fully assimilate what has or has not been conceded.
I would be grateful if the Minister could either repeat his assurance that along with the business plan the framework agreement will also shortly be laid before both Houses of Parliament; or, if he has no intention of doing so, perhaps he could explain to the House why he cannot do so? 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 Debate on bills on Banking (Special Provisions) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c358-9 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:46:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447079
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447079
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_447079