---

Banking Bill

I do not think that the Minister is deliberately missing the point, but I am fearful that he does not understand it. The Bill says that, "““the lapse of an order under paragraph (b) does not invalidate anything done under or in reliance on the order before the lapse””." That would seem to mean that if something, such as a transfer, is carried out, which is one of the things imagined, of which the House disapproved—and the House disapproved of the order that gave the power to make that transfer—the transfer would nevertheless remain and could not be altered except by some other Act of Parliament. Is that the Minister’s understanding? That is really what we are fighting about. That is the mischief of this retrospective provision.