Banking (Special Provisions) Bill

I rise to respond fortified in the knowledge that, as I understand from an authoritative source, the title of the Bill as originally drafted was the Banking (Emergency Provisions) Bill. However, officials decided that it could not be called the Banking (Emergency Provisions) Bill because there was no emergency. If that is the case, I think that the Minister has already conceded. I always enjoy being in opposition to the Minister because, as I said before, you can tell when he does not believe the case he has been asked to put. His voice rises, the volume increases and the party politics leap out at all of us as he seeks to justify what he has been asked to say. It was a marvellous speech for the noble Lord, who of course was previously Chief Whip; it is the sort of speech that every Chief Whip would love, because it was arguing with passion. But the Minister was quixotically chivalrous, if I may say so, in tilting at the windmills posed to him by my noble friend Lord Trimble, who set out a spectre which he quite rightly sought to tilt at. We are dealing here with some quite simple amendments which make it perfectly possible for the Government to proceed. I do not think that we have really heard a justification today for why all this rush. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who undertakes this vitally important task with the committee, has set out that there have been other occasions, but I do not think that I have ever seen—I am talking only from my memory and not his—such a strong report so clearly rejected by the Government as this has been. That sets an unfortunate precedent. I must say in defence of the Minister that he did say that he found it a very uncomfortable position to be in, to be arguing that we should ignore some of those provisions. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, who once again reminded us of the context in all this. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, ““But we passed the terrorism provisions in 36 hours””. I have only two things to say. First, this is not about guns, bullets and terrorism. Secondly, I do not think that the legislation to which he refers can be held up as a shining example of the best legislation in the circumstances. It would have been far better to have had more detailed scrutiny. That is the great thing about this House. We take things really seriously and go through legislation line by line. We are not being given that opportunity on this occasion. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I recognise his argument. However, I think that my noble friend Lord Trimble countered it. Of course we currently have limited powers on statutory instruments, but it is not necessarily the amendment or the refusal to accept a statutory instrument that is important—it is the opportunity of debate so that the issues can be brought out and considered carefully. I thank my noble friend Lord Onslow for the point he raised. In summary, this is a sad day for parliamentary democracy. I do not think that we in this place have been treated with the respect that we deserve. This is legislation being rushed through. It is not an emergency. We should have had more time to consider it carefully. The Minister’s rejection of these amendments is probably a classic example of what I am trying to put across. If he had more time, these are just the sort of amendments that he would want to accept. But he said ““No””, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 3 not moved.] Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.