Clause 184
Banking Bill
5:00 pm
John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Southport, Liberal Democrat)
I have a concern, brought about by the comments of other hon. Members, about the excessive use of “may” in the context of other verbs. An initial reading of clauses 183 and 184 might lead one to assume that the Bank of England will not act, will not publish and will not inflict a penalty for a minor offence that does not really require and necessitate such action. The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that there might be various reasons for that; it might not happen owing to information being highly commercially sensitive and because the payments agency and the Bank of England, and its chief executives, have had a really good lunch somewhere—we simply do not know. However, it is a quasi-judicial system. Some people whose details are published and who have penalties inflicted on them will, presumably, be commercially damaged.
I am wondering—this is a serious anxiety—how one resolves concerns about equity, if, for example, the Bank of England uses its discretion in one way, in favour of one organisation, and in another way, possibly for good reasons, against another organisation. Should the organisation that is commercially damaged or embarrassed, or whatever, feel itself to have any kind of grievance, what precisely may they do about it? I cannot see an appeal mechanism here, nor can I see a mechanism whereby the reasons that the Bank may have for acting in one case and not in another will be made explicit to such organisations. I am worried that rumour may spread to the effect that decisions are made on a partial and less than equitable basis. Obviously, if the system is to work well it has to embody equity.