Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Banking Bill.

Banking Bill

I agree with the Minister about the importance of the arm's-length arrangement, but I shall press him, and I apologise if he has already covered this this afternoon. I am not trying to make difficulties for him, but I am genuinely concerned by this clause. It sets out five objectives and then states: "““The order in which the objectives are listed in this section is not significant; they are to be balanced as appropriate in each case””." However, there are three relevant authorities—the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England—that will have different perspectives in a complex situation. Somebody has to be able to take a decision and be in charge. Am I missing something here? Is the answer that it is the Government or the Treasury? If it is the Treasury—

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
706 c1166 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Codes of practice Accountability Administration Assets Bank services Banks Credit unions Building societies Bank of England Deposits Financial institutions Insolvency Legislation Government assistance Financial Services Authority Financial markets Foreign companies Protection Public sector Public expenditure Nationalisation Terrorism Regulation Shareholders Treasury Financial Services Compensation Scheme Northern Rock Freezing of assets
Legislation
Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk