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

Few people would wish to quibble with Lords amendment No. 7. However, I hope that the Minister will both respond to my question about how it came about that those authorities wanted to be included in the Bill at such a late stage and say what she sees as the implications of that. We quite often hear complaints in the House that a different regulatory regime operates in, for example, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man from that which Parliament imposes here, and that that regulatory regime is often less protective of consumer interests. For example, the other day I attended a breakfast at which the issue of health supplements was raised in that context. Concern was expressed that the Channel Islands' regime for regulating health supplements was rather different from that which applied in the UK. What guarantees can the Minister give that the implications of extending the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are compatible with being able to look after the best interests of individual investors or members of mutual organisations?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c1100 
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