I make one point of clarification on what my noble friend said. I apologise for my cold. It is absolutely necessary that the definition of “bank” should be extended in the way that the noble Lord has said. I am very pleased with that. He gave us a reason that these investment banks, or these investment institutions, might be a potential liability for the taxpayer. I hope he will withdraw that. It is very important that there is no taxpayer liability there. The reason we wanted it expanded is that we were concerned about banking standards, which was what this commission was all about: banking standards and culture. That is why it is necessary that there should be this regime for these banks, not because there might be a taxpayer risk or bailout.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lawson of Blaby
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 November 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
749 c1372 Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-12-20 05:20:49 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-26/1311271000020
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-26/1311271000020
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-26/1311271000020