I have agreed with all the amendments tabled so far by the Conservatives as ways of strengthening the legislation, but I disagree with this amendment. There are perfectly good reasons why building societies should be put in a position comparable to that of banks. I was not aware until this Bill came along that building societies were not in the same position as banks and could not access lender of last resort facilities in the same way as banks. That has just come to light, but if it is the situation, it seems entirely reasonable to address it.
The argument that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made was, ““Why don't we think about all this in the bigger scheme of things with the intervention powers?”” However, we are not talking about omnibus powers of nationalisation. We are talking about situations that could well arise in the next few weeks or months in which a building society, as one understood that Barclays did in the autumn, could go to the Bank of England for liquidity support. We are in difficult circumstances, and it seems right that those powers should be available now both to protect the interests of the building society sector and to maintain a level playing field between banks and building societies, which surely we want to do.
Banking (Special Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Vincent Cable
(Liberal Democrat)
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.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c264-5 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:08:02 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446249
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446249
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446249