UK Parliament / Open data

Banking (Special Provisions) Bill

Proceeding contribution from Earl Ferrers (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bills on Banking (Special Provisions) Bill.
My Lords, my noble friend is half right and half wrong. There was a fearful row about whether it was a hybrid Bill. The Government said that it was not, everyone else said that it was, and the Examiner said that it was. That Bill failed, and the Government produced another one in the next Session. The Government are getting over this problem by saying that it is not a hybrid Bill, but the purpose of hybridity is to be fair to all. By removing hybridity, you remove fairness. There is one particular point in which I am interested. Northern Rock has offered mortgages of 125 per cent, as we have heard. In other words, for a house worth £100,000, you could get a mortgage of £125,000. Two other banks were doing that, but have stopped today. Has Northern Rock also stopped doing that? Granite is legally owned not by Northern Rock but by a charitable trust administered through Jersey, as we have heard. Northern Rock considered that it controlled Granite, even though legally they were distinct. Northern Rock included Granite in its audited accounts, even though Northern Rock did not own its assets. If Granite is unable to repay the money that it has borrowed when it becomes due to repay it, it will fall to Northern Rock to do so. Will that still be the case once Northern Rock is nationalised? Perhaps the Minister could let us know. I fear that the Government have a tiger by the tail. It is not simple, it will not be simple, and they will be pulled into all sorts of difficult problems.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c223-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top