Clause 156
Banking Bill
1:00 pm
Mark Hoban (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Fareham, Conservative)
I am slightly perplexed by the Minister’s response. In the previous stand part debate, the Minister was happy to leave all the detail to the FSA to sort out: “It’s not up to us, guv. We’ll let the FSA decide all these important issues.” Yet, in this scheme—the contingency funding clause—the Minister has taken an alternative view: “We’re going to do this, not the FSA.”
The Minister has not explained to the outside world why this approach is right for contingency funding, but the other approach is right for reform of the FSCS in the light of recent experience. I find that disappointing—there is a difference of approach. The Government clearly want to have the right to trigger contingency funding—for which the affirmative resolution procedure is right—but I do not understand why they have gone further than that, saying that they will set out the main principles of the legislation. It is not clear why there is a divergence of practice between the different parts of the scheme. It leaves external stakeholders confused about the Government’s approach. Does the Minister wish to clarify? I do not get the sense that he does, although I am happy to give way if he wants me to.