Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 19 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill.


Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill

Obviously, the operations of such an institution within the United Kingdom, in so far as they dealt with retail issues—insurance or building society services, for example—would be regulated in this country. I am concerned about the regulations on the operation of such a mutual society. For example, what proportion of loans would it be allowed to take in comparison with the value of its members' interests? One thing that prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West to introduce this legislation was his liberalising desire for mutual building societies to be able to have access to the wholesale market for funds. It was that power that went to the head of Northern Rock and resulted in its current problems. I do not say that that was the sole cause, but it contributed. If Northern Rock had remained a mutual building society, it would not have been able to get access to those wholesale funds or to get into its current difficulties, which have resulted from recent events in the financial markets.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c1084 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Channel Islands Fees and charges Insurance companies Isle of Man Financial Services Authority Mergers Mutual societies Subsidiary companies European economic area
Legislation
Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill 2006-07
Financial Mutuals Arrangements Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk