My Lords, in making his speech a short while ago my noble friend indicated that it was on 18 September that his predecessor issued an intervention notice stating that a public interest consideration might arise in the case of Lloyds-TSB/HBOS. That was nearly a month ago, and I thought I would start by making the point that during the past three or four weeks, we have seen a tremendous general intervention by the Government through the Treasury in the banking system. I am thinking particularly of the United Kingdom, but we know that similar events have taken place in many other countries as well. We know also that two of the banks to have received financial assistance are Lloyds-TSB and HBOS. Given that, how urgent is this public-interest-consideration intervention into Lloyds-TSB/HBOS now, in order to favour the merger, when it is already going to receive benefits under the so-called bail-out package that has been agreed? Has the level of urgency changed?
I want to ask my noble friend a basic question. Do the Government accept that a major takeover involving two of the five largest retail banks in the UK may well create substantial competition problems and consequent consumer disadvantage, as well as disadvantage to small and medium-sized enterprises? Under the present procedure set out in this order—assuming that it goes through, as I am sure it will—the Office of Fair Trading has to report to the Secretary of State that, subject to and absent the public interest consideration about the stability of the financial system, the takeover ought to be referred to the Competition Commission. If the Office of Fair Trading says that, absent the public interest consideration, the normal competition concerns should prevail, will the Secretary of State retain an open mind on whether he should rule that that public interest consideration should trump the competition concerns that may be identified by the Office of Fair Trading?
I also want to ask my noble friend whether, if he is minded in due course to allow this takeover to go ahead, which is the point of the order before us, he feels able to impose any conditions on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lady Kingsmill to ensure that the new enlarged bank does not abuse its market position? Bearing in mind my noble friend’s recent transition from Brussels to London, I hope he will recall the statement made last week by the relevant EU Commissioner, his former colleague Mrs Neelie Kroes, that, "““competition policy has a constructive part to play in this crisis””."
I hope that he agrees with it.
Finally, does my noble friend agree that it might be a good idea to state that he would welcome an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading in either two years’ time, as my noble friend Lady Kingsmill suggested, or, as I would suggest, in 12 months, to see whether the abuses that can arise from the new dominant bank among other banks in this country are sufficiently serious to disadvantage the consumer?
Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2008
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Borrie
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 16 October 2008.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2008.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c857 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-12-02 18:16:08 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500823
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500823
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500823