I have a brief question on amendment 6. Although I accept that transparency and openness are the spirit of the age and we cannot necessarily move entirely against that—[Laughter.] We do our level best some of the time. I am sure that the Treasury will be at the vanguard of this. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, at times of great difficulty, when there are issues about the stability or functioning of the UK’s financial banking system, it would be appropriate not just for the Treasury Committee but for the Treasury itself to have some say in suggesting when openness should not be fully fledged? The safeguards that he has put in place in the amendment refer only to the Treasury Committee; does he not see that there might be instances when Ministers might rightly have concerns about issues of stability that should be protected from open transparency at least for a time, although there could then be a move to make the minutes and other things more open at some future point, once the particular threat had passed?
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Mark Field
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 April 2016.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
608 c816 Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-03-22 11:15:28 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-04-19/16041935000011
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-04-19/16041935000011
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-04-19/16041935000011