---

Sale of Student Loans Bill

I agree with my hon. Friend but I am not sure whether the technical argument is that the amendment would preclude the whole process happening. Some of us may argue that that is no bad thing, but I am trying to explore the next level of protection. It is almost as if we are in a Catch-22 position. Those who have read the novel will recall a character called Major Major, whom one could get to see only when he was out. If he was in, he was occupied, but if he was out, people were free to go and discuss whatever they liked with him. If the Minister clarifies that including ““shall”” would at any stage compromise Treasury rules, we are embarking on a process that cannot offer any guarantees of protection in the new world of risk in which we are being invited to make rules. It leaves the process extraordinarily dubious on moral and practical grounds. If we cannot build in the protections, we should not embark on a process that increases, rather than reduces, the risk of exposure. My preference is for amendment No. 4, which grants the ““shall”” protection to the whole clause. However, if the word ““shall”” were inserted after subsection (6)(a), would the transfer remain legal?