Proceeding contribution from Baroness Noakes (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
The Minister made an interesting digression on the future nature of the financial services industry in the UK, but he did not answer the points that I made about this amendment, so I will have another go. The Minister said that ““in some circumstances”” there would be a duty to maximise. He went on to say that the subsection was designed to ensure that previous owners are not treated capriciously or dismissively. My point was: why was this only permissive? Why would a resolution fund order not always require the maximisation of proceeds, subject of course—as I accepted—to the special resolution objectives, specified in paragraph (a)? Why would a resolution fund order not require the Bank of England or the Treasury to maximise proceeds? The Minister did not say why that would be the case.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 706 c1535
- 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 21:50:40 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519655
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519655
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_519655