Proceeding contribution from Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful—I think that is the right word—reply. I am no parliamentary draftsman. It struck me that if the direction is specific it presumably means that it must be pretty directly related to something already in the Bill; it cannot be something unrelated, it must be close. I have no doubt that a general direction must still be related to the Bill but is much wider. I was concerned with that width. Would it be a back-stop power when the word ““general”” is used? If it is not a back-stop power, when would it be used? However, I am grateful for the Minister’s undertaking to consider all these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 698 c141GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Business Anti-social behaviour Charity Commission Gambling Commission Franchises Highways Agency Local government Office of Fair Trading Regulation Local Better Regulation Office
- Legislation
- Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 02:27:39 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437762
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437762
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_437762