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

We are talking about hypotheses. If my hon. Friend does not think that any group would have a locus standi to petition in the event that a hybrid instrument had been deemed, there would be no harm in allowing the hybrid instrument procedure, because it would not make any difference. Perhaps neither my hon. Friend nor I are wise enough to know exactly what is behind all this, but paragraph 6 is phrased as it is because somebody thinks that private interests might well be prejudiced as a result of the procedure. Under the hybrid instrument procedure, those interests would have a right to petition in the other place and ““they”” might wish—I do not know who ““they”” would be—to preclude that right or opportunity from those aggrieved petitioners.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c1085 
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