Proceeding contribution from Lord Higgins (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Banking Bill.
Banking Bill
Is it not the case under this clause that the Bank of England could take over a particular bank and make it into a bridge bank but, under the provisions for onward bridge banks, it could indeed pass on the viable part of it—the Minister seemed to imply that that would happen—but get left with the rump, including the toxic assets? To that extent, the Government would be taking over a degree of toxic assets and retaining them, even though the best part had been sold on. It is the same point as that which my noble friend Lord Eccles is making.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 706 c1249
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Codes of practice Accountability Directors Assets Bank services Banks Competition Delegated legislation Bank of England Employment Liability EU law Financial institutions Insolvency Private sector Protection Pay Public appointments Property transfer Public sector Parliamentary scrutiny Staff Nationalisation Shares Taxation Shareholders Treasury
- Legislation
- Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 18:56:09 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_518991
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_518991
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_518991