Skip to main content

1-15 of 15 results for subject:Misrepresentation

Member X
Lord Garnier

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Garnier, Lord (15)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I begin, as have others, in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on initiating this debate. It is sad, as he said, that this is the second or third time he has had to bring this matter to our attention either on the Floor of the...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 December 2014
Reference
589 cc492-3
House
House of Commons

I could not agree more. The banks and the FCA must take responsibility for what they have done, and if that requires the urging of the Treasury, please let that happen. These banks are making vast amounts of money, and although I am a Conservative capitalist and like companies to...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 December 2014
Reference
589 c494
House
House of Commons

I will not comment on the legalities or illegalities involved in that specific case, but I will say in relation to the case to which I have referred that the bank not only failed to explain the risks of moving into a new loan vehicle fully, properly and candidly, but...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 December 2014
Reference
589 c494
House
House of Commons

I agree, and that reflects what happened in the case that I have described. If there is anything that ought to be done—and the motion deals with this—the transparency of the banks, and hence their accountability, should be increased. It is no good the independent reviewer saying “Nothing to see,...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 December 2014
Reference
589 cc494-5
House
House of Commons

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is entirely right—there was a full discussion in Committee on this clause and these concepts, and I commend to him and to the Solicitor-General the remarks of not only my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) but of my...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1700
House
House of Commons

Another controversy led to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General giving an assurance that there would be no resiling from the undertaking not to remove jury trials from fraud cases except through a separate, stand-alone measure, and telling us that a review and consultation was taking place about that. Will the...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1704
House
House of Commons

On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Lloyd of Berwick said:"““My Lords, it seems to me that this is one of the best Bills to have come out of the Home Office for many a long year.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1664.]" I...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1705
House
House of Commons

For a moment, I allowed myself to be fooled into thinking that people were coming into the Chamber to hear my speech. I have a horrible suspicion that it has more to do with what the Minister for Europe and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1705-6
House
House of Commons

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) clearly set out his objections to the retention of the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. His new clause addresses that in detail. As he said, there is no difference between us in respect of having this particular offence in...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 October 2006
Reference
450 c1697
House
House of Commons

Fraud Bill (HL). Second reading debate. Agreed to on question. Programme motion for proceedings in Committee, on Report and Third reading agreed to on question (formal)

Lead member
Mike O'Brien
Answering member
Dominic Grieve
Department
Solicitor General
Type
Debates on bills
Date
12 June 2006
Reference
447 c534-83
House
House of Commons

Well, that is J rather than L. They are different letters of the alphabet, and we are making progress. In short, there is a foreseeable potential problem with relationships that can be the subject of abuse, which could then lead to fraud. We must bear in mind the distinction between...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
12 June 2006
Reference
447 c575-6;447 c576-7
House
House of Commons

I am delighted that someone such as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) has found this afternoon’s debate such an enjoyable occasion, because, as he knows, the Government are here to provide us with pleasure, and they have, in fact, done it 53 times since 1997. This...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
12 June 2006
Reference
447 c573-5;447 c573-6
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman says, ““Certainly not””, from a sedentary position, in case anyone did not hear him. He also made sensible points about case management, and gave his support for the jury system. From my experience of summing up to juries, and of addressing juries as an advocate, they have...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
12 June 2006
Reference
447 c577-9
House
House of Commons

Perhaps a better analogy than the offence of ““going equipped”” is instruments that can be used for an innocent purpose and adapted for a nefarious one, for example an iron bar or knife. It is the old distinction between ““made”” and ““capable of being adapted”” for a criminal purpose.

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
12 June 2006
Reference
447 c568
House
House of Commons

How will clause 11 create a better set of circumstances than the offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage under the old law? How will it produce a better set of circumstances than the provisions of the Theft Act 1978?

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
12 June 2006
Reference
447 c540
House
House of Commons