So on the one hand I've received that feedback that the scope of the bill is too narrow; on the other hand I've also received feedback that the scope of the bill is too broad, and that non-bank deposit takers—such as credit unions—should be excluded from the regime. However, it is my view, and the Government's view, that non-bank deposit takers offer a wide range of bank-like services to consumers and face similar governance and conduct risks. Therefore, my view is that they should remain subject to the bill. Their inclusion in the regime is also consistent with the Government's June 2019 decision to bring prudential regulation of banks and non-bank deposit takers within a single deposit taker regime. 