Oral question asked in the House of Commons, by Peter Viggers (Conservative). It was answered on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 on behalf of the Treasury.
Government Shareholdings
- Question
- If the Prime Minister can express anger that the Royal Bank of Scotland should make an acquisition without fully understanding the extent of the commitments that it was taking on, how much more angry should we be that the Government have taken on commitments and made investments in banks without knowing, even now, the full extent on the taxpayer's behalf?
- Answer
-
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The implication is that we should not have stepped in to save the financial system from collapse because of the uncertainty to which he refers. The cost of doing nothing would have been far, far greater. We took decisive action. We acted quickly and we saved the system from collapse; indeed, in the debate yesterday, the shadow Business Secretary recognised that those steps were right.
Secondary information
- Type
- Oral question
- Reference
- 491 c688
- Session
- 2008-09
- Oral question type
- 1st Supplementary
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Banks Finance
- Link
- View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2014-09-01 21:22:09 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1416606/-question
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1416606/-question
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1416606/-question