Clause 191
Banking Bill
5:45 pm

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

The clause states that it is an offence to pretend to be recognised under these provisions. If I remember correctly, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 has similar provisions. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to tell us how frequently prosecutions have been brought under those provisions. I know that there have been some and in those circumstances they tend to be very much at the retail end. Given that participants in inter-bank payment systems will be banks and sophisticated institutions, does the Minister think it necessary to do this and to have this provision?

Secondly, will a central list of recognised inter-bank payment systems be available on the Bank of England website, in the way that there is a list of authorised entities on the FSA website? There is a legitimate point about wanting to make it clear which entities are recognised and where participants could get some sort of regulatory protection. Does the Minister intend to have such a list? In those circumstances it would not really be necessary to have this provision. I do not see that it does any great harm, but I am not sure that it adds to the efficacy of the provisions we are debating today.

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

This is yet another backstop. I perfectly accept the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. It is not the policy intention that any value should be attached  to a payment system being recognised as such. However, simply to deter operators of payment systems from trying to exploit the new framework in such a way it is necessary to impose a criminal offence on anyone who wilfully misrepresents a payment system as being recognised when it is not. It is highly unlikely that someone would want to do that, but I am advised that it is helpful to have a deterrent there. That is what the clause does.