Proceeding contribution from George Osborne (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Banking (Special Provisions) Bill.
Banking (Special Provisions) Bill
I think that my hon. Friend's interpretation of clause 10 is right. When we went through the technical details of the Bill, we asked Treasury officials about the clause and we were told that the reason for it was to avoid any perverse tax consequences of nationalisation and that it was an insurance policy against taxpayers losing out unexpectedly. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point. I suspect that we may not even reach clause 10 in the couple of hours allowed for the Committee proceedings, but if we had longer, the points could be explored in more detail and we could hear Ministers' reasons for its inclusion.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 472 c184
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Accountability Audit Banks Competition Building societies Bank of England Liability EU law Government assistance Financial Services Authority Economic situation Property transfer Mortgages Loans Staff Office of Fair Trading Nationalisation Regulation Stocks and shares Shareholders Takeovers Treasury Virgin Group Business plans Northern Rock Granite Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Banking (Special Provisions) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 22:56:18 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446100
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446100
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446100