---

Banking Bill

The noble Baroness said that she was hoping for a break while my noble friend Lord Eatwell moved Amendment 57. I am also disappointed that he did not move it because I had rather a good answer. When we had an open meeting before we went into formal session and I met Peers to talk about the Bill and how we proposed to assist the House, the noble Baroness warned me that I should expect a high degree of energy and enthusiasm from her and long sessions if necessary. She is certainly evidencing everything she led me to believe and doing it admirably. Amendment 60 proposes a new clause to provide for the procedure for supplemental, reverse and onward share transfer instruments and orders. When we debated other amendments to these clauses, I noted that the effect of the noble Baroness’s amendments was to remove the existing procedural provisions. This amendment reinstates some aspects. As I made clear previously, the Government’s position is that the original wording of the clause is preferable. As a consequence, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel able not to press Amendment 60. The procedural requirements of, for example, Clause 24 apply to supplemental, onward and reverse transfers, in each case by the provisions exemplified by Clause 27(4). With that, I hope that I have gone some way towards answering the noble Baroness’s question and that she will either say more to explain her perplexed expression or be inclined to withdraw the amendment.