Proceeding contribution from Lord Lyell of Markyate (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 February 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Banking Bill.
Banking Bill
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving those three examples, but they are all examples where the retrospective power could properly be said to be necessary. They would not need the words ““or desirable”” in order to have that power. Can the Minister draw that distinction as to why he needs ““desirable”” as well?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 707 c563
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Compensation Consumers Accountability Audit Assets Debts Bank services Banks Delegated legislation Advisory services Bank of England Finance Liability Financial institutions Insolvency Government assistance Financial Services Authority Holding companies Protection Payments Public interest Public sector Public expenditure Parliamentary scrutiny Loans Post offices Post Office Nationalisation Regulation Rural areas Treasury Financial Services Compensation Scheme National Loans Fund Financial Stability Committee Sunset clauses Retrospective legislation
- Legislation
- Banking Bill 2007-08 to 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 09:34:07 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_526162
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_526162
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_526162