My Lords, we spent a long time during the passage of the Banking Bill discussing Section 75. It was argued by a number of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches that we should not have it at all and that the Government should just do things and then be sued if the people to whom they had done them had any objection to them. It was argued that we have Section 75 because one cannot predict everything in advance and we needed a catch-all provision. It seems to me that this order demonstrates why we need Section 75 and it has been used in exactly the way that the Government set out during the Bill’s passage it would be used. I suspect, as the noble Baroness says, that some of the Bill’s provisions would be replicated pretty much verbatim if a subsequent building society or bank went through the same procedure, but the fact that we now have them here in no way reduces the usefulness of having them here and I am happy to support the Government.
Amendments to Law (Resolution of Dunfermline Building Society) Order 2009
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Newby
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 May 2009.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Amendments to Law (Resolution of Dunfermline Building Society) Order 2009.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c628 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:24:26 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554490
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554490
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_554490