Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Gauke (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 28 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Investment Exchanges and Clearing Houses Bill.


Investment Exchanges and Clearing Houses Bill

I take the Economic Secretary’s point about the four points in proposed new section 300A, which is helpful. However, they are merely the first part of the test, which triggers the right of the FSA to make a direction. My point concerns a direction made under proposed new subsection (2), which cannot relate to proposed new subsection (4). The question whether such a direction would be subject to judicial review returns us to the regulatory objectives. Whether the direction is reasonable or compliant with regulatory objectives relates to section 2 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the four regulatory objectives mentioned by the Economic Secretary. At that stage, proposed new subsection (4) would not be relevant. Stage 1 concerns whether the excessive test has been breached, and stage 2 is when a direction is made. Would such a direction be reasonable?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
453 c1038 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Bureaucracy Jurisdiction Investment Financial Services Authority Financial markets Ownership Powers Standards Regulation Stocks and shares Rules of procedure Takeovers USA Trade competitiveness London Stock Exchange Recognised clearing houses Recognised investment exchanges
Legislation
Investment Exchanges and Clearing Houses Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk