As we have said many times, the Government carried out appropriate contingency planning, and it was right that we should do so. That goes to the heart of the concern about the amendment. First, there is the question of timing. Secondly, there is the question of who should do the work. The wording of the amendment would be counterproductive. Opposition Members have said that they want to reduce the level of intervention by Government Departments and Treasury officials. If they are asking for a plan that was drawn up in advance of any transfer order being put in place, they should recognise that such a plan could only have been drawn up by the civil servants and the Department.
It is right that a great deal of work should be done by the board—by Ron Sandler and his team in the case of Northern Rock, but bearing in mind that the Bill applies more widely, the provision should be applicable in other circumstances as well. We need to provide for the circumstances in which a new team might need to come in and look at the books in some detail before making more specific proposals.
Banking (Special Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Yvette Cooper
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 February 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Banking (Special Provisions) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c246 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:07:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446221
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446221
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446221