Proceeding contribution from Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 26 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Banking Bill.
Banking Bill
I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants an order of precedence. On balance I am broadly supportive, but I have a question. If the situation is critical and speed is of the essence to prevent an institution from causing a systemic failure, is it absolutely necessary or even desirable to lay out the order of precedence in the way that he describes, especially given how long the discussions with various private sector bidders for Northern Rock took? Should the order of precedence not be implicit rather than explicit, thus allowing the Government to move immediately to the second or third option, thereby treating them as the first option, if that is necessary under the circumstances?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 483 c814
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Compensation Codes of practice Consumers Directors Assets Debts Bank services Banks Credit unions Building societies Capital Deposits Finance Liability Financial services Financial institutions Exemptions Insolvency Government assistance Financial Services Authority Private sector Protection Pay Property transfer Public sector Publicity Mutual societies Nationalisation Shares Treasury Henry VIII clauses Financial Services Compensation Scheme
- Legislation
- Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:18:21 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_512500
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_512500
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_512500