Third Reading

Part of Banking Bill – in the House of Lords at 4:45 pm on 9th February 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Goodlad Lord Goodlad Conservative 4:45 pm, 9th February 2009

My Lords, I am advised that, procedurally, it is expected that I should say very few words about this extremely significant debate. The Minister made a detailed and eloquent speech explaining the Government's decision. He received no support from anyone in the Chamber and opposition from the Back Benches of the Labour Party, the Cross Benches and the Liberal Democrat Party. The Front Benches of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party were silent on the matter, which is, according to taste, welcome, disgraceful or sinister.

I am content not to press the amendments tabled in my name and those of other noble Lords in the hope that the Government will, at Commons consideration of Lords amendments, consider adjusting Amendment 22, so that the Treasury can make orders with retrospective effect only if it considers that doing so is exceptionally in the public interest. In deference to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, whose expertise on Third Reading procedure is not exceeded by anybody and who has a batting average in first-class cricket of more than 25, I shall not move the amendment.

Amendment 20 not moved.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendments 22 to 24

Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham

22: Clause 75, page 39, line 44, at end insert "(but in relying on this subsection the Treasury shall have regard to the fact that it is in the public interest to avoid retrospective legislation)."

23: Clause 75, page 40, line 3, leave out second "or"

24: Clause 75, page 40, line 4, at end insert—

", or

(c) amend any provision of an instrument or order made in the exercise of a stabilisation power."

Amendments 22 to 24 agreed.

Clause 103: General powers, duties and effect

Amendment 25

Moved by Lord Davies of Oldham

25: Clause 103, page 60, line 38, in column 3 insert—

"Anything done by the bank in connection with the exercise of a stabilisation power under Part 1 of this Act is not a gratuitous alienation for the purpose of section 242 or any other rule of law."