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

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which we considered in some detail on Second Reading. The US consensually decided that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act would provide proper consumer protection and be consistent with the continued success of its financial markets. We considered that exact issue at the time in the UK, and we were criticised by some commentators for refusing to go down the road of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We feared that that approach would damage the competitiveness of our financial markets and that a move towards a more heavy handed, dirigiste, box-ticking approach to regulation would be likely to undermine, rather than to enhance, consumer protection. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, a light touch, proportionate, risk-based system requires one to act more decisively when one sees risk than is possible under a more legalistic, box-ticking approach to regulation, which allows one to comfort people that the boxes have been ticked but does not involve the identification of risk.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
453 c1038-9 
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