Banking (Special Provisions) Bill

My Lords, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to reconsider the position that he stated a few moments ago. I speak with some hesitation having not been in this House for as long as he has, but I find myself amazed at his proposition. I understood his argument to be that we should not have an affirmative resolution because it did not give any serious opportunity for scrutiny. If that is his view, surely that must be a view of general application. If that is the view that he takes, he must surely take the view that there is no point ever having an affirmative resolution procedure in this House. I find that an astonishing proposition. The noble Lord says that he does not think it is worth having an affirmative resolution procedure because you cannot amend the order. I agree that that is a serious defect in procedure. It would be a good thing if that defect was remedied and the opportunity was there to amend affirmative resolutions. But one surely cannot use that limitation in our procedure as a reason for throwing out affirmative resolutions as desirable things. Furthermore, I remind the noble Lord that the conventions committee, in its consideration of this matter, recommended that this House should be prepared more often to use its power to reject affirmative resolution orders. The House has been properly cautious in approaching that matter, but who is to say that that caution will remain at its present level? I am sure that at some point in the future, cautiously no doubt, the recommendation of the conventions committee will be followed and that orders subject to affirmative resolutions will be rejected. We should consider those factors plus the importance in this situation of ensuring that there is some debate. On a negative resolution, there is no debate. There is no doubt about the importance of this matter and ensuring that parliamentary accountability goes a little further than dropping a piece of paper onto the Table in front of us. A proper debate is surely desirable.