I support my noble friend on her two amendments, but I must confess that I support her with rather more enthusiasm on Amendment 10 than on Amendment 9. It must be absolutely right to make sure that any consultation that takes place is published, because we all believe in transparency and openness. It must be right that people can access deliberations which have taken place and can take a view on what is going on. What worries me about Amendment 9 is its provision for the Treasury to consider which other persons have an interest in the statement. I get the impression that that leaves the Treasury with a veto. It may not ask any extra persons to become involved in the consultation.
I do not know why, but I have suspicions that it might be rather attractive to the Treasury to ensure that a minimal number of people are asked. If the decision is to lie with it, perhaps no one else will be asked to take part in the consultation, because that will be what the Treasury decided. I am not an overenthusiastic supporter of the amendment, but perhaps my noble friend Lady Noakes can spell out for us how she sees it working. Or does she have much greater faith in the good will of the Treasury towards everyone than perhaps I do?
Financial Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 March 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Financial Services Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c299 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:13:22 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_629652
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_629652
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_629652