---

Bradford and Bingley plc Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Order 2009

I thank the Minister for introducing these two orders, which are of course not unexpected, given the insertion of Section 237 into the Banking Act during its passage through this House. I have been uncomfortable about Sections 55 and 237 of the Act, and these orders leave me no more comfortable about the valuers being given the power to compel the provision of information. With regard to procedure, the valuer has to apply to the court to get the information, which seems sensible, but the order says nothing about procedure. For example, does the valuer have to notify the person whom he wishes to compel about the application? How much notice must he give? What rights do the persons who could be affected but who are not the ones who are compelled to give the information have? The Minister implied that such rights exist but there is nothing in the order setting that out. When considering Section 237 during the passage of the Bill, we were told that the Northern Rock valuer wanted to obtain information from the auditors and from potential commercial purchasers for Northern Rock, but in the event they were not permitted to proceed with the acquisition of Northern Rock. I assume, therefore, that those persons declined to give that information voluntarily. Thus a Banking Act valuer would be in a position to obtain information which, in the ordinary course of events in the commercial world, he would probably not be able to obtain. I believe that that places an onus on the Government to ensure that the persons who can be coerced into giving information are fairly treated. Section 55(3) allows the Treasury to make provision about procedure but this order has not done so. Can the Minister explain why? My concerns are increased when we get to the information disclosure elements of the order. Proposed new Section 9C seems to give good protection in the form of consent for persons who are forced to hand over information to the valuer or who are affected by the information, but that is considerably watered down by proposed new Section 9D and, in particular, proposed new subsections (3) and (4). Will the Minister explain in what circumstances the valuer might need to disclose information he has obtained for the purposes of his office, as referred to in proposed new subsection (3), against the wishes of the person forced to give the information? In connection with proposed new subsection (4), will the Minister explain why the rider "so far as practicable" is attached to the valuer having regard to the need not to disclose commercial or private information? Surely, there should be an absolute requirement to respect commercially confidential information and, perhaps even more importantly, private confidential information. Can the Minister explain what remedies are available to deal with the improper disclosure of information by a valuer? That is disclosure by the valuer of information that is obtained by virtue of the powers that are given to him, but which are not within the specific terms of the order. Can the valuer be liable in damages if information is disclosed without consent or one of the protections offered by the order? In addition, Section 55 allows the Treasury to create a criminal offence in connection with an order, but it has chosen not to do so. Criminal offences are not unusual protections against the abuse of information powers. That is particularly important because once information has been disclosed, it cannot be put back into the private domain. Proper sanctions are extremely important. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Treasury has not used its power to create an additional protection for those who might be forced to disclose information. The Minister would not expect to get through a debate on either Northern Rock or Bradford & Bingley without some more general questions. Of course, the possibilities are endless, but I shall confine myself to business plans. We have still not seen a business plan for Bradford & Bingley, notwithstanding that its mortgage book has been nationalised for nearly six months. How difficult is it to prepare a business plan for a rump organisation? Can the Minister at last be precise about when we can see its business plan? Taxpayers have a right to know what is being done with their money. Turning to Northern Rock, a business plan was prepared last year, although only the briefest of outlines was put into the public domain. In January, the Government announced a U-turn and said that Northern Rock would tear up that business plan and start lending again. However, two months on we have seen no revised business plan even though Northern Rock itself has said that it will involve capital and legal restructuring. I remind the Minister that taxpayers’ money is bankrolling this organisation. Lastly in this context, will the Minister say who is setting the agenda for these organisations? Is it the Treasury or UKFI? Whoever it is seems not to understand the meaning of speed or accountability. We need to be clear about who is to blame.