---

Banking Bill

That is part of the position. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness could give an example of where the party concerned was in difficulty, having entered an agreement without fully understanding the potential circumstances. After all, we are talking about situations in which there has been a substantial institutional failure and the authorities have been obliged to act. A range of individuals involved with that institution could have relationships with regard to foreign property that they entered in good faith, and they wonder why they should bear the loss. Of course I understand the anxiety on that score. That is why Clause 39 is a significant attempt to ensure the most effective representation on the matter that the authorities can manage. However, we are not prepared to accept that the Bank of England would be the final resort on which liability could rest. That would be putting the Bank in an extremely invidious position, particularly in circumstances whereby, as the noble Baroness suggested, someone had entered into an agreement without thinking things through and had acted stupidly. What is certain is that someone who had got themselves into that position had taken a commercial risk. I am afraid that the Government’s position is that if there is an element of risk in the position, there is also a possibility of liability attendant upon that position. It is not for the Bank of England to meet that liability in such circumstances. That is why I am unable to accept the amendment.