Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Banking Bill.

Banking Bill

Although I do not like it, I do not have a problem with the Minister’s description of this provision. However, I do not see why it is necessary to be able to extend an order beyond the 28 days. I have particular problem with why, if Parliament chooses not to approve an order, it is necessary for the original decision to stand. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, that seems to create a third area of law that is neither common law nor statute law, but law by ministerial fiat. That seems very dangerous and out of all proportion with the problem. If the Minister could explain why it is necessary to have that, we would be less concerned.

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
706 c1607 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Contracts Compensation Codes of practice Company law Companies Directors Administration Assets Bank services Banks Delegated legislation Bank of England Finance Liability Financial institutions Insolvency Financial Services Authority Holding companies Foreign companies Private sector Pay Powers Workplace pensions Property transfer Public sector Partnerships Nationalisation Stocks and shares Taxation Treasury British Bankers' Association Financial Services Compensation Scheme National Loans Fund Statutory instruments Liquidation committees
Legislation
Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk