David Gauke (Shadow Minister, Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

My intervention on this clause will be even more brief and concerns the terminology used of the operator and manager of a system. Before I entered this place, I was a solicitor specialising in regulatory matters. Unfortunately, I did not specialise in this area  but in collective investment schemes. Over the years I worked in that field, I was never entirely comfortable that I understood the difference between operating and managing a collective investment scheme. The clause uses the terminology of operating and managing a payment system. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee on the difference between the two. As far as I can see, both are swept up under the definition of “operator” for these purposes.

Ian Pearson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Dudley South, Labour)

The clause defines various terms used throughout part 5, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. In particular, subsection (a) defines the term “operator” of an inter-bank payment system to which the provisions of this part apply if the inter-bank system is recognised by the Treasury under clause 170. It is a sensible and straightforward provision. Subsection (b) allows that

“a reference to the operation of a system includes a reference to its management”.

Subsection (c) defines references to the UK financial system in the same terms as section 3(2) of FSMA, which states:

“‘The financial system’ means the financial system operating in the United Kingdom and includes—

(a) financial markets and exchanges;

(b) regulated activities; and

(c) other activities connected with financial markets and exchanges.”

I do not think that I need go into detail on subsections (d) or (e).

The clause makes it clear how we interpret the terms used. It is pretty straightforward and is understood by the financial community that considers these things closely.