---

Banking Bill

Let me put a simple question to the Minister. If the FSA has satisfied itself that the stabilisation powers can be exercised because conditions 1 and 2 have been met under Clause 7, there is not then a sequential run through Clauses 8 and 9. It is the case, is it not, that either Clause 8 or Clause 9 could be used, or both could be used? That is, the circumstances could be such that both conditions A or B were satisfied in relation to Clause 9 and the conditions set out in Clause 8 could be met. If it were the case that the bank thought that it could find a private sector purchaser, or through a bridge bank arrangement could transfer on the bank in one or more parts, it could be trumped by the Treasury taking a bank into public ownership. My point is that the Bill does not make temporary public ownership a last resort, which is what the Minister and his honourable friend in another place were trying to suggest, because of the nature of the tests. The Minister in another place said that it was a test of last resort, but that is clearly not the case in the statute. Can the Minister confirm that if the Clause 7 conditions are met, the Treasury can operate temporary public ownership, even if the Bank could, in the same circumstances, produce either a private sector purchaser or a bridge bank?