UK Parliament / Open data

Finance Bill

Proceeding contribution from Mark Hoban (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 8 July 2009. It occurred during Debate on bills on Finance Bill.
I am not entirely convinced by the argument about the delays that would be caused by agreeing a statutory instrument. If the Economic Secretary looks back over the history of the past few months, he will see that the Government have taken action to deal with Bradford & Bingley and the Dunfermline building society, for example, and taken measures that require statutory instruments to be approved. They have gone ahead with that quite happily, but now they claim that they cannot act without a statutory instrument that the House of Commons has approved. It is not the Government's strongest argument. I am not sure about the Economic Secretary's assurance that the power will not be used often. Many clauses, which we are assured will not be used often, are included in Bills, yet the Icelandic banks were tackled under clauses in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. We must, therefore, be wary of Ministers' reassurances. However, in this case I will take them at face value. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c1048 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Legislation
Finance Bill 2008-09
Back to top