Banking (Special Provisions) Bill

My Lords, it might have been a single-paragraph Bill but the significance of that decision was such as to engage the nation in very great debate. The Upper House at that time delivered within the space of 24 hours. I am therefore not going to receive lectures about it being a decline of parliamentary democracy to ask this House to consider this Bill which has emergency provisions within the timescale that we have put forward. As for the contentions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, with regard to affirmative resolutions, that is easily said but there are issues with regard to this House being able to negative or even amend affirmative resolutions. That would represent quite a shift in the balance of power between the two Houses. That may well be broadly accepted, but let the noble Lord not think that that decision would apply to this House alone. Elected Members of the other House would look askance at the regular arrival of negative action against affirmative resolutions, and rightly so. Anyone would think that it is only a Labour Government who use such devices. I know it is a long time since noble Lords opposite have been in government but they are lively and have green and verdant memories and they can surely recall the fact that they have used these instruments many times and certainly would not have tolerated regular rejection by the Upper House at that stage. If they say, ““We would not have anticipated rejection of our instruments in such circumstances””, then a real issue of democracy arises—that when one party is in power at the other end, certain conduct is acceptable in this place, but when another party is in power, a rather different strategy is pursued. I give way to the noble Earl.