Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Higgins (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Banking Bill.


Banking Bill

I can see why my noble friend feels the inclusion of ““last resort”” in the Bill is not desirable since it savours of absolute desperation should the clause be put into operation. However, her amendment, which would suggest that the measure would be resorted to only if the other two options had failed or were not appropriate, seems a sensible thing to include in the Bill. It would make the situation clearer and seems to have no great disadvantage. I am a little puzzled by subsection (3), which seems to suggest that temporary public ownership would be considered only after the Treasury had provided financial assistance. I am not clear how that gels with the order in which these actions should be taken. But presumably, if one had failed on the first two possibilities, and assistance had already been provided, it would not be inappropriate to go all the way in terms of public ownership, unfortunate though that may be.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
706 c1211 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Codes of practice Accountability Administration Assets Bank services Banks Credit unions Building societies Bank of England Deposits Financial institutions Insolvency Legislation Government assistance Financial Services Authority Financial markets Foreign companies Protection Public sector Public expenditure Nationalisation Terrorism Regulation Shareholders Treasury Financial Services Compensation Scheme Northern Rock Freezing of assets
Legislation
Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk