Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 9 February 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Banking Bill.
Banking Bill
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Although his Amendment 22 is a considerable improvement, the difficulty with it is that it is drafted by reference to what Ministers must have regard to, but it allows Ministers also to have regard to many other matters. Does he agree that it would achieve the Government's objectives and meet many of the concerns that he has heard expressed today if Amendment 22 were drafted in terms that allowed the Treasury to act if it considered that it was in the public interest to avoid retrospective legislation, rather than simply requiring it to have regard to such a matter?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 707 c959-60
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Compensation Consumers Assets Bank services Banks Delegated legislation Bank of England Deposits Finance Investment Financial institutions Insolvency Financial Services Authority Financial markets Protection Public interest Property transfer Scotland Treasury Financial Services Compensation Scheme 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 09:25:00 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527452
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527452
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527452