Proceeding contribution from Viscount Eccles (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Banking Bill.
Banking Bill
Does experience arising from Northern Rock, which has now had a certain run, and with Bradford & Bingley, with a much shorter run, throw some light on the need to make the Bill so much more complicated than the Northern Rock Act, which relied on itself and the existing body of legislation? As the Minister just reminded us, the clause is an enabling clause allowing powers to be used but only when they are needed and by secondary legislation. My question, which relates to the argument made by my noble friend Lord James, is: are we absolutely sure that we need all this additional law in the light of experience to date with failing banks?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 706 c1464-5
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Compensation Codes of practice Assets Bank services Banks Competition Delegated legislation Bank of England Capital Liability Financial services Financial institutions Insolvency Financial Services Authority Private sector Property transfer Public sector Mergers Nationalisation Scotland Small businesses Valuation Treasury
- Legislation
- Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-16 21:48:06 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519585
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519585
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519585