Few people would wish to quibble with Lords amendment No. 7. However, I hope that the Minister will both respond to my question about how it came about that those authorities wanted to be included in the Bill at such a late stage and say what she sees as the implications of that. We quite often hear complaints in the House that a different regulatory regime operates in, for example, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man from that which Parliament imposes here, and that that regulatory regime is often less protective of consumer interests. For example, the other day I attended a breakfast at which the issue of health supplements was raised in that context. Concern was expressed that the Channel Islands' regime for regulating health supplements was rather different from that which applied in the UK. What guarantees can the Minister give that the implications of extending the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are compatible with being able to look after the best interests of individual investors or members of mutual organisations?
Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Chope
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 19 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c1100 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:03:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418406
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418406
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418406