Proceeding contribution from Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 March 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Bradford and Bingley plc Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Order 2009.
Bradford and Bingley plc Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Order 2009
As the Minister said, these are not surprising statutory instruments; we have expected them for some time. I start where the noble Baroness just finished in terms of speed. In respect of Northern Rock, the whole process of the evaluation of Northern Rock’s assets has happened at a snail's pace. As the Minister pointed out, the order allowing a valuer to be appointed was made on 12 March. Six months later, a valuer was appointed. In my view, that was a completely unacceptable delay. How difficult can it be to appoint a valuer of a bank that is bust? Secondly, why have we had a six-month gap between the valuer being appointed and this order coming forward? More importantly, in respect of Northern Rock, is why such an order should be necessary at all. What kind of body is refusing to divulge information to the valuer that could have a serious influence on the valuation of Northern Rock? To a non-technical person, the conditions that were placed on the valuer would seem by definition to mean that Northern Rock had no residual value at the point at which it was nationalised. It would be extremely helpful to know what class of person is refusing to co-operate with the valuer in this respect, because it is shameful behaviour. The noble Baroness talked about the need to be concerned about people who are coerced into giving information in respect of both these orders. It is not a question of being coerced into giving information. Anyone who has information that is relevant to the process should, as a matter of public duty, be willing to give it. If he has to be dragged to court in order to give it, he should not feel that he is being coerced. Rather, he should not be allowed to act as an obstacle to the pursuit of the public good. The noble Baroness rightly talked about the delay in seeing a business plan for Bradford & Bingley. She will recall that when Northern Rock was being nationalised, we were promised a strategy document by the Government within days of the Bill being passed which never appeared, despite assurances on the Floor of the House that we would see it within a day or two. I am slightly jaundiced about the Government making available business plans in respect of these two bodies. I revert to this: I accept that Bradford & Bingley is a more complicated case, but is the Minister able to tell us why on earth anybody needs to have this procedure applied him to given the situation in which Northern Rock finds itself? Who is obstructing the valuer in trying to get the information which he feels he properly needs?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 709 c20-1GC
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Compensation Banks Nationalisation Shares Shareholders Northern Rock Bradford and Bingley
- Legislation
- Bradford and Bingley plc Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Order 2009
- Northern Rock plc Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Order 2009
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:26:30 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538599
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538599
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538599