I just take up the Minister on that last point. Surely one of the key arguments about the ring-fence is that there is an implicit guarantee from the public authorities not to allow institutions within the ring-fence to fail. That implicit guarantee is worth a lot of money to those banks that have been too big to fail. Surely the whole point about the ring-fence is that those outwith it would not benefit from that form of public continuity guarantee. But is the noble Lord saying that the Government wish to retain such measures, which would allow them to implement such continuity guarantees?
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Eatwell
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 October 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
748 c384 Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-12-20 04:30:44 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-10-15/13101586000200
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-10-15/13101586000200
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-10-15/13101586000200