Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 3 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords].


Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords]

I agree. New clause 3 is better worded; it might have been drawn up over a weekend, but new clause 2 must have been rushed through the drafting process much more speedily than that this morning. New clause 3 is more tightly defined, but new clause 2 has provision for subsequent reviews, whereas new clause 3 does not. Those who would prefer more than one review, or at least the option of that, may be tempted to support new clause 2. As I am of the view that the option of more than one review may be desirable, I am more sympathetic to the objectives of new clause 2, although I see that the drafting of new clause 3 has greater merit.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
482 c31 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Devolved matters Charities Assets Bank services Banks Building societies Finance Insolvency Financial Services Authority Personal savings Northern Ireland Scotland Registration Voluntary organisations Young people Regulation Wales Youth services Big Lottery Fund
Legislation
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk