---

Banking Bill

I temporarily lost my notes. I was about to move the next amendment, which might have confused the Minister. Amendment 104 seeks to change ““may”” to ““shall”” in Clause 60(1), which deals with third party compensation arrangements in cases of partial transfers. This clause allows the Treasury to make an order which will give effect to the ““no creditor worse off”” safeguard promised by the November consultation document. The industry has welcomed this and we support it, though as I mentioned in connection with the set-off and netting issue, the lack of certainty about outcome of the processes set out in the draft order—and, indeed, in the clause—means that it adds nothing to the legal certainty that is required for set-off and netting arrangements. We cannot understand why the Treasury should have the option to issue the ““no creditor worse off”” order. It promised it as a safeguard and should be required to deliver it. Anything else would create uncertainty, which we have already debated in the context of partial transfers. I hope that the Minister can agree to this because it is a straightforward case of making an order and is not subject to the more complex provisions that we came across in the context of whether we should have ““may”” or ““shall”” in Clause 48. Clause 60 is very much more straightforward and I hope that the Government agree that this is a no-brainer. I beg to move.