---

Banking Bill

That would be a misinterpretation of the Government’s position. If I have misled the noble Baroness, I must correct myself as rapidly as possible. The whole point about Clause 38, and Clause 35 which permits the transfer of foreign property, is that of course we recognise that we must create the strongest possible position for the effective transfer of foreign assets. We would expect that a very substantial number of foreign regimes would recognise such legal rights and that the issue would be the realisation of the value of those rights for the individual and the Bank acting in this capacity. However, when all those instruments were in place and those efforts were made, it may remain the case that loss was involved. It may be impossible to enforce the right with regard to foreign property, because the legal entity may not be prepared to recognise that obligation and the matter could not be pursued in those terms. The Government’s position is not one of neglect—it is the opposite. The position is to pursue every strategy as far as the Bank is concerned to ensure that it realises assets. However, when it is unsuccessful in those circumstances—and we have to expect that it may not be successful in every case—the risk must be borne not by the bank but by the transferee. I have a very extensive note on this matter. If, on the arguments that I have set out thus far, the noble Baroness feels that she is not able to withdraw her amendment, my extended note would refine the issue somewhat but I am not sure that it would move us very far with regard to the substance. However, if she is still dissatisfied with my answer, I will prolong the discussion and do my very best to persuade her. Having said that, I hope that she is content with the points that I have made and I ask her to withdraw her amendment.