Thank goodness for that.
The banking standards commission, in one way or another, is likely to provoke a debate about the merits of splitting Royal Bank of Scotland into a "good" bank and a "bad" bank.
The members of the committee may not be united in supporting the idea, but at least the advocacy of Lord Lawson, a former chancellor, might force a proper analysis of the issue. It would be long overdue.
The current situation smells suspiciously like a government-sponsored attempt to kill the discussion at birth. The possible motive? The desire to declare a great triumph if the state can flog a few RBS shares before the election in May 2015.
You can hear the pitch being prepared already: Labour nationalised the banks, we nursed them back to health and reprivatised them.
But is it wise to privatise RBS in its current form? A detailed analysis is required. There are at least two possible gains from splitting RBS. First, as Sir Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, has argued, losses for taxpayers may be minimised if the bad assets are parked with the state and unwound over time. Second, a "good" bank, without the dead weight of bad assets, might be better equipped to lend to small businesses with enthusiasm.
On the cost side, there would clearly be an initial bill. One way to execute a good bank/bad bank split would be to nationalise RBS in full as a first step. Buying out minority shareholders might cost £7bn. Then the bad assets would be separated before the "good" bank would, presumably, be privatised.
That process couldn't happen overnight. Would RBS's lending go into reverse during the restructuring? It's a risk.
It might also be argued that RBS is a long way down the path of shedding its bad assets already and that a giant rejig is now unnecessary.
The board thinks the rotten stuff will amount to £40bn by the end of this year. Even if most of Ulster Bank were thrown into the "bad" bucket, we might be talking about £50bn of bad assets.
It sounds a big number but RBS's total funded assets were £875bn at the last balance sheet date.
That's the sketchy outline of the debate so far. The point, though, is that it is too sketchy. The Treasury select committee has asked the Treasury to prepare a cost/benefit study but none has yet appeared. It is essential that it does the numbers as, even at today's slimmer RBS, the outcomes for taxpayers could be very different under the various options.
If parking the bad assets with the state for a few extra years were to yield an expected additional gain over time of, say, £5bn, that's serious money and maybe worth a wait.
Chancellor George Osborne, if he thinks RBS requires no more major surgery before privatisation, should be forced to make a detailed case.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010