---

Banking Bill

My Lords, Amendment 64 would add an extra condition to the use of the bank holding company nationalisation powers set out in Clause 81. The new condition is that the bank represents at least half of the group’s turnover, balance-sheet total and number of employees, as shown in the latest group accounts. This is a form of words that is used in the Companies Act. I was initially intrigued by the Minister’s description of the rationale for Clause 81 when it was introduced by amendment in Committee. The Minister ended his explanation by saying: "““Finally, a private sector solution may be more likely on a group-wide than a bank-only basis. This is particularly the case if other non-bank parts of the group are attractive to buyers””.—[Official Report, 20/1/09; col. 1578.]" That rang alarm bells. The scenario is that a successful group has a relatively small bank which is failing. The relevant authorities think how easy it would be to get rid of that small bank if they wrapped it up in those other nice businesses, so instead of expropriating a bank with, say, 500 employees, they take hold of a large enterprise with 10,000 employees. My real life example for the Minister is this: would Clause 81 allow the Treasury to grab hold of Tesco, which since a while ago has held 100 per cent ownership in a bank? The same does not apply to Sainsbury’s. This is my Tesco amendment in another sense, too, and, with a nod to its strapline, every little helps to clarify the nature of this legislation. I beg to move.