Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
My assumption regarding the action that the administrator should take in implementing objective 1prompt payout to customersis that the order of preference for that action is not as set out in the Bill:
Objective 1(a)...Objective 1(b)...Objective 1(a) for one specified class of case and Objective 1(b) for another.
It would actually be objective 1(a), then the hybrid of 1(a) and 1(b) and, perhaps as a last resort, objective 1(b), given that 1(a) provides fast payout for all depositors, the second option provides fast payout for some and the third is the default. I assume that is how the liquidation committee would judge the various options.
Similarly, may I assume that if circumstances were to change quickly and dramaticallyas they can in a fast-moving situationit would be possible for the liquidation committee to change its options and indicate that to the bank liquidator?
In direct response to the question put by the hon. Member for Fareham, it would probably be wrong to speculate on the detail of future cases. The authorities would want to make a decision based on the available information. They would be working behind the scenes to figure out whether a bulk transfer of accounts was possible in respect of subsection (1)(c). If not, they would obviously resort to objective 1(b). In the clause, we give the authorities all the options, but we have to be clear that bulk transfer of accounts would be the preferred option if someone were willing to take the accounts, and if the expenses of the bank liquidator cost the FSCS less than paying out compensation. However, we need to operate case by case. It would be up to the authorities to make the best decision, based on the information available at the time.