Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Ed Balls (Labour) 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

The test of the reasonableness of the directive is whether the requirement is excessive under proposed new subsection (2)(b). Proposed new subsection (4) states:"““In considering whether a requirement is excessive the Authority must have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including””" proposed new paragraphs (a) to (d). As on so many occasions in terms of finance, if only Mrs. Gauke were here. Not being a lawyer, I must fall back on the legal advice put before me. It has been put to me that so long as the FSA makes its decision in line with the tests in proposed new section 300A, and that reasonableness is defined as striking a proper balance between market confidence and consumer protection, the FSA will be judged to have fulfilled its obligations under the 2000 Act.


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