Proceeding contribution from Lord Myners (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 26 January 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Banking Bill.
Banking Bill
I am happy to come to that in a moment but should like to carry on addressing the comments the noble Baroness made on proposed subsection (6) in Amendment 174B. I was asked whether I was aware of any precedent for the removal of the requirement to report to Parliament. I am not aware of any direct precedent. The key issue here is to avoid systemic risk. The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment on transparency and I will return to this issue in that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, expressed sympathy with much of what the Government are doing in helping businesses, people and homeowners as a result of the consequences of the global credit crisis. For that, I express the Government’s appreciation. I believe that I have answered the questions on proposed subsection (6) of Amendment 174B. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked a number of questions, but I am afraid that I missed the penultimate one. If he can remember the order in which he asked the questions and is kind enough to help me, I will endeavour to answer him. Following that, he asked about parliamentary control of the giving of guarantees. I have already addressed that question in respect of the comments made by the Council of Mortgage Lenders on parliamentary accountability. I will endeavour to be even more helpful to the noble Baroness on the term ““financial institutions””. This provision allows the Treasury to inject clarity at the edges where there may be some doubt as to whether a particular institution is a financial institution. It would not allow the Treasury to specify something as a financial institution when clearly it is not. For example, it could not specify Jaguar Land Rover or Corus Steel as financial institutions. Yet the hybrid nature of many financial institutions and the ever-present sense of innovation in the financial services sector may give rise to doubts as to whether an institution qualifies as a financial institution. Accordingly, the Government believe it appropriate to have such powers to make judgments on definition. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is ready to remind me of his unanswered question.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 707 c65-6
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Compensation Codes of practice Audit Assets Debts Bank services Banks Delegated legislation Bank of England Bank notes Deposits Credit rating Housing Finance Fees and charges Liability EU law Investment Financial institutions Insolvency European communities Government assistance Financial Services Authority Financial markets Foreign companies Private sector Membership Public expenditure Property Parliamentary scrutiny Loans Post offices Monetary policy Statistics Regulation Stocks and shares Valuation Treasury Financial Services Compensation Scheme National Loans Fund Northern Rock Financial Stability Committee Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 18:52:02 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_522598
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_522598
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_522598