Proceeding contribution from Baroness Noakes (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 March 2010. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Financial Services Bill.
Financial Services Bill
I do not quite know what to do with my amendments. On a slightly different point, the Minister said that the Government did not have to regard Amendment 10 as relevant because they did not agree with Amendment 9, which is about public consultation. There was no public consultation so there was nothing to publish. I made the point when I introduced my amendments that Amendment 10 would exist independently of Amendment 9 because there is already a consultation provided for in the Bill. There would be responses to the Treasury on this consultation. I suggest that those at least should be made plain and transparent. If the Government are serious about transparency in these new arrangements, why do they go to the trouble of setting out that there is a process and then get secretive about the outcome? Why is the minimalist consultation required in the Bill not to be transparent?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 718 c300
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- EU law Financial services Financial institutions Insolvency Financial markets Economic situation Property transfer Parliamentary scrutiny Staff Regulation USA
- Legislation
- Financial Services Bill 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:13:21 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_629657
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_629657
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_629657