Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 21 February 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Banking (Special Provisions) Bill.


Banking (Special Provisions) Bill

Like the Minister, I am not a lawyer but my understanding of Pepper v Hart is that statements made at the Dispatch Box can be used subsequently in legal proceedings. I asked the question in respect of hybridity because the Minister is on record as saying that we are introducing this Bill with these wide powers in order to avoid the problem of hybridity. If Pepper v Hart applies to considerations of hybridity, and if I wanted to argue that the Bill was hybrid, I would point out that the Minister had told Parliament that he had made it this way in order to get round the problems of hybridity. That is rather like setting up tax-avoidance schemes with the express purpose of avoiding tax—something the Revenue tends to take as not being valid.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c345 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Audit Administration Corporation tax Banks Competition Building societies Freedom of information Liability EU law Government assistance Financial Services Authority Powers Property transfer Mortgages Loans Staff Office of Fair Trading Nationalisation Lloyds TSB Shares Reform Taxation Shareholders Takeovers Treasury Hybrid bills Business plans Northern Rock Granite
Legislation
Banking (Special Provisions) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk