Skip to main content

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